BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    The ARC and The Covenants

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    The Preservation Maze

    DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

    Florida’s Statute of Limitations / Repose for Actions Founded on Construction Improvement Modified

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    Texas Legislative Update

    Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    The ABCs of PFAS: What You Need to Know About Liabilities for the “Forever Chemical”

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    General Contractor Intervening to Compel Arbitration Per the Subcontract

    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

    Canada's Ex-Attorney General Set to Testify About SNC-Lavalin Scandal
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

    February 22, 2018 —
    A few years ago, the Fourth District Court of Florida rendered an opinion in Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., 169 So.3d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) regarding Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (referred as to “FDUTPA”) (Florida Statute s. 501.201et seq.). This case held that a party can assert a FDUTPA claim even though the party is NOT a consumer. The party still has to prove there was an injury to consumers in filing such claim, but again, the party can bring the claim even though it is NOT a consumer. Caribbean Cruise Line, 169 So.3d at 169 (“[W]hile the claimant would have to prove that there was an injury or detriment to consumers in order to satisfy all of the elements of a FDUTPA claim, the claimant does not have to be a consumer to bring the claim.”).See also Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 2018 WL 905752, *15 (M.D.Fla 2018) (relying on Caribbean Cruise Line to find that even though the plaintiff does not need to be a consumer, the plaintiff still must prove an injury to consumers to satisfy elements of a FDUTPA claim). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    December 16, 2019 —
    On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed

    December 23, 2024 —
    A living shoreline being constructed in the Florida Panhandle's Apalachicola Bay is protecting a critical local highway, while fostering marsh areas and oyster habitat that’s seen years of decline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    June 22, 2020 —
    In an effort to move forward a $576 million Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project, the California State Assembly passed AB 3005 on June 8, the Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act, facilitating the construction of the project. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Administration Launches 'Buy Clean' Construction Materials Push

    February 28, 2022 —
    The Biden administration is moving to put U.S. government purchasing power behind construction materials with lower embodied carbon emissions and pollutants, with the White House launching a “Buy Clean Task Force” on Feb. 15. as part of a slate of initiatives intended to decarbonize manufacturing while boosting the economy. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    February 04, 2013 —
    The California Homebuilding Foundation has inducted six industry leaders into their Homebuilding Hall of Fame, in recognition of both their professional accomplishments and their philanthropic and volunteer activities. The six homebuilders to be honored are Sherman S. Haggerty of Lennar Corp., Joe Head of the SummerHill Land Division of SummerHill Homes, Robert B. MacLeod of Newland Real Estate Group, John J. Ryan Jr. of Brookfield Homes Bay Area, Tom Sudberry of Sudberry Properties, and Bill Watt of Baywood Development Group. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    June 20, 2022 —
    Residents of the Mission Bay neighborhood seek “to hold the City of San Francisco responsible for raising up the sinking sidewalks” reported KRON 4. The suit alleges that the city should shoulder the responsibility for the necessary work needed for the infrastructure. Historically, “the neighborhood around the Chase Center east of Interstate 280 was part of the bay,” according to SF Gate. Later, “the area was filled with dirt and rock and further filled with rubble after the 1906 earthquake.” In 1998, further development took place. All of the “new occupied buildings in Mission Bay, such as the UCSF campus, the Chase Center and the 6,000 residential units there, are anchored into the bedrock," but "the sidewalks, streets and parks are not, and that's a problem.” "We're not asking for a handout; we're asking for a hand. We want them to step forward and make the repairs that they can actually implement," Scott Mackey, Partner at Berding | Weil, told CBS News. "Everyone understood that it's built on fill and built in an area where there would be some settlement. But, there also is an expectation that when the city turns over the infrastructure that that homeowners and property owners have to maintain, is that it's built correctly - that they're able to maintain it. The homeowners cannot continually chase the differential movement.” Read the full story at KRON 4... Read the full story at SF Gate... Read the full story at CBS News... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    August 10, 2021 —
    Last week, in North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that Congress did not intend for the states, or tribes, to take final action on Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 applications within a year of filing. The opinion conflicts with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2020 final rule that sought to limit state and tribal certifying authorities’ ability to delay federal projects through various tolling schemes. 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (Jul. 13, 2020). EPA’s rule, codified in existing regulations, states that the CWA imposes a strict one-year deadline for certification decisions, otherwise certification is waived. However, the Fourth Circuit’s view suggests that this waiver is not triggered in cases where the certifying authority has acted on the application, even if it takes longer than a year to make a final certification decision. The court ultimately decided the case on other grounds, leaving a resolution on the statutory interpretation question for another day. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com