BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

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

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    UPDATE: Trade Secrets Pact Allows Resumed Work on $2.6B Ga. Battery Plant

    Congress Passes, President Signs Sweeping Energy Measure In Spend Bill

    Angels Among Us

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

    Considering Stormwater Management

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

    April 05, 2021 —
    The cardinal change doctrine has become a popular doctrine for a contractor to argue under but remains an extremely difficult doctrine to support and prove. Arguing cardinal change is one thing. Proving cardinal change is entirely different. As shown below, this is a doctrine with its origins under federal government contract law with arguments extending outside of the federal government contract arena. For this reason, the cases referenced below are not federal government contract law cases, but are cases where the cardinal change doctrine has been argued (even though these cases cite to federal government contract law cases). A party argues cardinal change to demonstrate that the other party (generally, the owner) materially breached the contract based on the cardinal change. In reality, a party argues cardinal change because they have cost overruns they are looking to recover and this doctrine may give them an argument to do so. But it is important to recognize the distinction between raising it as an argument and the expectation that this (difficult doctrine to prove) will carry the day. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    April 18, 2023 —
    The Florida Supreme Court found that the president of a public adjusting firm, which was to be compensated on a contingency basis for its adjusting services, could not subsequently serve as a "disinterested" appraiser pursuant to the policy language. Parrish v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2023 Fl. LEXIS 261 (Feb. 9, 2023). Jon Parrish was insured under a policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company. When his home was damaged by Hurricane Irma in September 2017, he filed a claim and hired Keys Claims Consultants, Inc. (KCC) to provide public adjusting services. Mr. Parrish agreed to pay KCC a contingency fee equal to ten percent of whatever amount he eventually recovered from State Farm. There was disagreement between State Farm's estimate of the loss and that of KCC. Mr. Parrish demanded that the appraisal process set forth in the policy be implemented. Mr. Parrish informed State Farm that George Keys, the president of KCC, would serve as Mr. Parrish's appraiser. 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

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    October 15, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing analyzed data from the Survey of Construction (SOC) to demonstrate the differences in foundations built across the nation. For instance, “about 30 percent of new single-family homes started in 2013 have a full or partial basement, 54 percent are built on slabs, and 15 percent have a crawl space. The remaining share, including homes built on stilts or pilings, accounted for about 1 percent of homes started in 2013.” Climate is the deciding factor in what type of foundations are used, Eye on Housing reported. “In colder regions where codes require foundations to be deep the marginal cost of providing a full or partial basement is not that great. So basements are the most common type of foundation in the colder climate divisions.” The warm climate area of the West South Central division are primarily built on slabs. However, “the other two divisions that make up the South region – the East South Central and South Atlantic –are still largely built on slabs but crawl spaces are also common.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    August 14, 2018 —
    How long does a civil lawsuit take? One common question among parties to a civil lawsuit, whether a plaintiff or defendant, is how long will it take to reach a resolution? The answer is tricky. The time it takes to resolve a civil lawsuit is highly dependent on various factors including the complexity of the matter and the parties’ willingness to settle. At the outset, parties to a civil case may resolve the matter at any time by mutual agreement (i.e., settlement). In that case, the parties draft a Stipulation and Order outlining the terms of the agreed settlement and submit the document to the judge for approval. Absent of any glaring inequity in the terms of the Stipulation, the judge will typically approve of the parties’ settlement, and the matter will be deemed resolved (either in whole or in part, depending on the case, the terms of the settlement and indemnity agreement). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    June 26, 2023 —
    Chambers has released their 2023 USA guide and ranked White and Williams as a leader among national law firms. The firm was recognized for recent achievements in Real Estate Finance and Insurance in Pennsylvania, and Construction in Maryland. “We are very pleased to have some of our most talented attorneys recognized again by Chambers”, said Andrew Susko, the Firm’s Managing Partner. In addition, to practice area recognition, nine lawyers were recognized and ranked highly in the 2023 Chambers USA guide from Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Philadelphia, Timothy E. Davis, Partner and Chair of the Business Department, and Nancy Sabol Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate and Finance practice were recognized for their achievements in Real Estate: Finance; and, Stephen Coury, Connecticut Office Managing Partner, was ranked among the top Real Estate professionals in Connecticut. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    May 20, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Housing starts plummeted in February by the most since 2011 as plunging temperatures and snow became the latest hurdles for an industry struggling to recover. Work began on 897,000 houses at an annualized rate, down 17 percent from January and the fewest in a year, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday in Washington. The pace was slower than the most pessimistic projection in a Bloomberg survey of 81 economists. “Today’s report leaves me a little concerned,” said Michelle Meyer, deputy head of U.S. economics at Bank of America Corp. in New York. “While the initial reaction is to dismiss much of the drop because of the bad weather, the level of home construction continues to be depressed.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    August 13, 2019 —
    Division V of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, corporate veil-piercing in the context of a single-member, single-purpose LLC that is managed under a contract by another company. On July 3, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Honorable Ross B. Buchannan, Denver District Court Judge (17CA2102), who held that Plaintiff/Appellee Christopher Hinds satisfied the elements required to pierce the corporate veil of Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation (“Sedgwick”). Background Defendant 1950 Logan, LLC (“1950 Logan”) was the developer of a building located at 1950 Logan Street, in Denver, called The Tower on the Park (“Project”), which contained 141 individually owned condominium units. The Project was completed in 2006. 1950 Logan was a single-purpose entity created for the construction of the Project, which is a common practice in the construction industry. After the units were sold in 2006, the LLC wrapped up operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    October 02, 2013 —
    Engineering.com looks at why the Harmon Tower in Las Vegas will be coming down at some point in the future. Construction stopped, unfinished in 2008. Taking the building down will cost about $400 million, which the building’s owner feels that the developer should pay. Inspectors concluded that the building did not meet the earthquake specifications for Las Vegas. The contractor claimed that the fault was due to the design specifications and that the supports were further weakened during destructive testing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of