BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witness
    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


    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Uncover More Pool Deck Deviations

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    How to Survive the Insurance Claim Process Before It Starts –Five Tips to Keep Your Insurance Healthy

    Regional US Airports Are Back After Years of Decay

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In

    My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law
    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

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    July 28, 2018 —
    With the Fourth of July festivities still ringing in our collective ears, we are having our own celebration at Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC. We avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion as we want to keep relevant construction industry news and notes hitting your inboxes. Longtime readers will know, however, that we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, who are each humbled to receive this peer-voted award. We also share this news in recognition of our clients and industry-partners who have put their trust and confidence in us. Without these relationships, these industry acknowledgments would have no significance. Super Lawyers is a wholly independent company that identifies outstanding lawyers in the profession. It selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Super Lawyers’ initial pool of candidates is based on peer nominations and evaluations from outside the firm, which is then combined with Super Lawyers’ own third-party research. Only five percent of all lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars. What makes this award meaningful is it is based upon evaluation of individual merit—as opposed to a “pay-to-win” award. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, is again recognized as one of the 10-Best Lawyers in the State of Washington across all practicing industries. Founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill are also recognized as two of the 100-Best Lawyers across all practicing industries in Washington State. In addition, three other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (of counsel), and Lawrence S. Glosser (partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (partner), Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (partner), Ceslie A. Blass (associate), and Scott D. MacDonald (associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Well over half of the firm’s lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

    Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

    October 22, 2013 —
    Lawsuits concerning handicap access usually go toward obligating someone to provide access. But in Selma, Alabama, the city decided that handicap access to a Civil War memorial might not be all that important. The city of Selma hired KTK Mining to provide wheelchair accessibility to the city’s Memorial to the Confederate Dead and to increase security to a monument to the Confederate general Nathan Beford Forrest. After protests, the city revoked the building permit. KTM sued in federal court. The judge has ordered the two parties to a settlement contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    November 23, 2020 —
    In RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege. In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    October 19, 2017 —
    In State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (No. E064518; filed 9/29/17), a California appeals court ruled that after Continental was ultimately held to pay its policy limits for remediation of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site, the insured State of California was entitled to mandatory prejudgment interest on the full amount dating back to 1998, when a federal district court had issued a judgment under F.R.C.P. 54 declaring the State liable under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state law. To get there, the state appeals court held that vertical exhaustion applied to the attachment of Continental’s excess policies. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    November 17, 2016 —
    In Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted. The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    June 10, 2024 —
    When a multilevel construction project is underway and a contractor or subcontractor isn’t performing as expected, it can be difficult to know how to address the low performance without putting the parties’ contract and good working relationship at risk. However, there may come a time when poor performance lapses into a something much worse: an anticipatory breach or repudiation of the subject contract. Imagine Scenario One: You are a general contractor managing a large-scale construction project and one of your subcontractors is falling behind on their work. The project manager for the subcontractor calls you and says, “Look, I don’t think we’re going to be able to hit our next milestone, and probably not the next one after that.” A conversation like this would generally trigger concern for most general contractors, but it would not necessarily invoke panic. These types of delay conversations are not uncommon on large scale projects. Compare that example, however, with Scenario Two, where the subcontractor instead says, “We received an offer to work another job for much more money, so we’re leaving the project site today and will not be returning.” This is obviously different (and potentially worse) than Scenario One, and likely cause for much greater concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Devon Griger, Jones Walker
    Ms. Griger may be contacted at dgriger@joneswalker.com

    Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    September 06, 2023 —
    Congratulations to the ten Payne & Fears attorneys included in the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers® In America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Attorneys have been recognized in the following practice areas: Best Lawyers in America (2024) Irvine, CA Employment Law – Management Labor Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Jeffrey K. Brown Daniel F. Fears Commercial Litigation Litigation – Real Estate Daniel M. Livingston Thomas L. Vincent Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    April 03, 2019 —
    A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
    Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com