BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant 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


    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    Affirmed

    Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

    Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method

    An Era of Legends

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    UConn’s Law-School Library Construction Case Settled for Millions

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    The Three L’s of Real Estate Have New, Urgent Meaning
    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

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    December 21, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2). Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

    September 07, 2020 —
    While courts across the country are largely unavailable to litigants demanding a jury trial, pre-judgment interest rules present an increasing penalty risk to a defendant wanting its day in court and may not always make a plaintiff whole. The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the manner in which people and industries operate across the board. In light of the need to maintain social distancing whenever possible, the use of technology to replace in-person appearances is becoming more commonplace. As more attorneys become comfortable with the remote platform, the willingness to consider a remote trial grows. With in-person jury trials suspended until further notice, it is important for attorneys and parties to consider the attendant consequences of the indefinite delay in waiting for a traditional jury trial. Aside from general inconvenience, continued delays may have a substantial financial impact, particularly with regard to the accumulation of pre-judgment interest. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli and Kimberly M. Collins Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at collinsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    January 02, 2019 —
    The federal district court dismissed some insurers from a class action suit alleging failure to provide coverage for collapse claims. Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018). A class of homeowners brought suit in 2016 against their homeowners insurance companies ("defendants") for failure to cover collapse claims. Plaintiffs alleged they bought their homes between 1984 and 2015. Each of the homes had basement walls that were "crumbling and cracking due to the oxidation of certain minerals contained in the concrete." As a result of the deteriorating concrete, plaintiffs claimed that their basement walls were in a state of collapse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    March 28, 2018 —
    First, a little history: as you know, means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures are all part of the Contractor’s responsibility on a construction site. However, when the AIA A201 was last revised, in 2007, there was a provision put in for that rare time when the Contract Documents gave specific instructions concerning a particular construction method. If the Contractor viewed such instructions as unsafe, he was to give notice to the Owner and Architect, and was not to proceed with that portion of the Work without further written instructions from the Architect. If the Architect directed him to proceed, the Contractor was absolved from any risks with following that instruction. Instead, the Owner assumed the responsibility for any loss or damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    March 12, 2015 —
    In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions. In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    January 06, 2020 —
    The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) 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

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    July 18, 2022 —
    In early June, New York State Legislature passed legislation, often referred to as “The Grieving Families Act” (A.6770/S.74-A), which expands New York’s Wrongful Death Statute. This legislation is pending approval from Governor Kathy Hochul and has the ability to drastically impact wrongful death litigation by expanding how parties can bring an action, as well as expanding on recoverable compensation. Pursuant to the existing statute (EPTL §5-4.1), the statute of limitations requires commencement of an action within two years after the decedent’s death. The proposed Grieving Families Act expands the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action to three years and six months after the decedent’s death. Further, under the existing statute (EPTL §11-3.3), recovery in a wrongful death action is restricted to distributees (the intended beneficiaries under the will). The proposed legislation expands the parties permitted to bring a wrongful death action, replacing the term distributees with surviving close family members. These may include, but are not limited to, spouse or domestic partner, issue, parents, grandparents, step-parents, and siblings, leaving it to the finder of fact to determine which persons are close family members of the decedent based upon the specific circumstances relating to the person’s relationship with decedent. It remains to be seen what the burden of proof will be for the surviving close family members, as well as what process will be instituted with respect to the finder of fact. Presumably, the finder of fact will be a Judge. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court Opens Door for Challenges to Older Federal Regulations

    August 05, 2024 —
    Washington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another end-of-term major decision limiting the scope of federal agency actions in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Adding to the tectonic shift in the regulatory landscape created by the Court’s June 27 and 28 rulings constraining the role of administrative law judges and overturning longstanding “Chevron deference” by courts to federal agency expertise, the decision in Corner Post establishes a newly expanded time frame for affected entities to challenge final agency action. Instead of confirming that final agency action is subject to a default six-year statute of limitations, the Court held that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the time limit for appeal begins to run when a plaintiff is injured by the agency's action, not when the action becomes final. This decision has important implications for businesses and others affected by federal regulations. The case arose when Corner Post, a truck stop and convenience store in North Dakota that opened in 2018, challenged a 2011 Federal Reserve Board regulation (Regulation II) that set maximum interchange fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post filed suit in 2021, arguing that Regulation II allowed higher fees than permitted by statute. The lower courts dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), which effectively requires APA claims to be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com