BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction safety expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Construction Attorneys Get an AI Assist in Document Crunch

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, and Devin Gifford, and Associates Shelly Mosallaei and Melissa Youngpeter on Their Inclusion in 2024 Best Lawyers in America!

    Lewis Brisbois’ Houston Office Selected as a 2020 Top Workplace by the Houston Chronicle

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/11/23) – Millennials Struggle Finding Homes, Additional CHIPS Act Funding Available, and the Supreme Court Takes up Hotel Lawsuit Case

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    “Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    December 02, 2015 —
    As anticipated in a prior CGDRB 2015 Bulletin that discussed the Fifth Appellate District Court’s noteworthy opinion in McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist), the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision. The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict of authority presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court’s opinion in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and the Fifth Appellate District Court’s rejection of the Liberty Mutual holding in McMillin Albany. In Liberty Mutual, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims [violations of SB 800’s building standards] that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB 800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all construction defect claims arising out new residential construction are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act [SB800], including specifically, the requirement that the claimant provide the builder with notice and an opportunity to repair prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the Court, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars. Our firm will be closely monitoring this case, the outcome of which will significantly impact pre-litigation construction defect claims going forward. We will provide updates as to further activities and the Supreme Court’s decision. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    January 17, 2022 —
    Housing markets are red hot, with prices up more than 18% from November 2020 to November 2021. That’s an acceleration over the previous two years, which saw increases of 4% and 8% each. It’s also a faster rate than the U.S. experienced during the housing boom of the 2000s that preceded the Great Recession. That comparison is causing some heartburn. “Are we in another housing bubble?” asked Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. The consensus, shared by Zandi, is that the answer is no — or, at least, that today’s bubble is different and less dangerous than the last one. Lending standards are more strict than they were 15 years ago, for example, which ought to mean that fewer homeowners are at risk of defaulting if prices fall. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    July 31, 2013 —
    Belgravia Condominium Association, a group of condo owners in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have secured a $5.05 million judgment against the contractor who converted their 1902 building into condominiums. The suit alleged that the developers and engineers failed to disclose structural problems to the condominium buyers. One issue at hand was the maintenance of the building’s façade which has historic status. Repairs to the façade alone are expected to require $2 million. Ronald Williams, the lawyer for the association, noted that the iron canopy at the entrance had begun to break away and fall even before the condominium association came into being. The decision isn’t yet final, as the developer has an opportunity to appeal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    July 01, 2014 —
    Deaths from a building collapse in Chennai, India is currently at nineteen, while forty-two people have been rescued, according to the New York Times, and “40 others are feared trapped in the debris,” reported BBC News. The Chennai police arrested six people, “including the partners of the construction company, the architect and the structural engineer, and charged them with criminal negligence in connection with the building collapse there,” according to P. Subramniam, a Chaennai police officer, as quoted by the New York Times. "It appears they have not adhered to approved plans,” Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa told BBC News. “The building appears to have serious structural defects." Building collapses are frequent in India, and most are “blamed on lax safety and substandard materials,” reported BBC News. The New York Times pointed out that “municipal authorities rarely condemn buildings even when they appear to have dangerous defects.” Regardless, “even unsafe buildings attract people who want to live in them because the competition for shelter is fierce among millions of city residents.” Read the full story, New York Times... Read the full story, BBC News... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    September 12, 2022 —
    In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion. The Smith case involved a civil action brought by Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith that arose from a 2019 fire at their residence in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. The fire purportedly started in a filter pump, which was operating at the time of the fire, that the plaintiffs purchased in 2002 as part of an aquarium tank kit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    January 27, 2014 —
    The EPA recently amended the “’All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’ concerning environmental site assessments of potentially contaminated sites,” reports the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog. Engineers will need to be aware that “Phase I assessments should now reference ASTM International’s E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” in order to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    July 10, 2018 —
    Withdrawal liability is a huge issue facing unionized employers. According to Bloomberg, 93% of the Top 200 largest pension plans are underfunded by a combined $382 billion. Contractors that withdraw from a multi-employer pension plan can face hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in assessed withdrawal liability. However, employers may be able to avoid that liability, plus the legal and consulting fees to fight it, by simply reading their collective bargaining agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com