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


    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    FAA Plans Final Regulation on Commercial Drone Use by Mid-2016

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss
    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

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit

    April 26, 2021 —
    A federal appeals court has thrown out a $1.8-billion award granted by a lower court three years ago to an AECOM unit in a bizarre legal battle involving a Nevada company that claimed to have won multiple contracts using the name of Morrison Knudsen—the former well-known Boise-based construction contractor that was sold in 1996, and through acquisitions, became part of design-build giant AECOM in 2014. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, 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

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    December 09, 2011 —

    A federal judge dismissed a coverage lawsuit brought by Mid Continent Casualty Company against its insured, Greater Midwest Builders Ltd.

    Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in response to a suit filed in Johnson County District Court, seeking a judicial determination that it had no coverage obligation for claims asserted against its insured. This case was stayed until the state court action entered judgment against the insured. The prevailing parties then commenced a garnishment action against the plaintiff, and another insurance company, in state court in Missouri. The court was asked whether it should lift the stay and proceed with the case, or decline jurisdiction in favor of resolution in the Missouri state court.

    The court granted the motion to dismiss holding that proceeding with the case would lead to protracted, piecemeal litigation, while deferring to the Missouri state court would decide all the claims involved in the dispute.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bally's Secures Funding for $1.7B Chicago Casino and Hotel Project

    August 12, 2024 —
    Plans for a $1.7-billion casino and adjacent 34-story hotel are advancing in Chicago as the gaming operator reports it has secured $940 million to complete funding for the project and has set demolition for a printing press building now occupying the site for this summer. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    February 10, 2014 —
    West Deptford, New Jersey township redevelopment counsel Mark Cimino had spent a year arguing that the city should receive a $4 million reduction in construction costs due to “inadequate documentation provided by the bank, as well as receipts showing disbursement had ‘improperly’ been made toward uses other than construction,” according to a December 30th 2013 article in the South Jersey Times. However, a state appellate court upheld the ruling that “the township had no basis” to request the reduction. Now, Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo is “seeking a $10,000 refund on the attorney fees paid” to Cimino, the South Jersey Times reported on February 6th. “This entire matter has been a monumental waste of tax dollars, and I am angry that the entire township committee was misled by Mr. Cimino and induced to believe we had any reasonable chance of recovering loan proceeds from this lawsuit,” DiCarlo stated in a letter to Mayor Raymond Chintall. Not all committee members agree with DiCarlo. Committeeman Sam Cianfarini told South Jersey Times that “he still believed Fulton Bank owed it to West Deptford to answer for any funds put toward anything other than construction.” Cimino declared “that both the lawsuit and appeal were valid,” according to the February 6th article. He “accused DiCarlo of ‘playing politics.’” Read the full story, December 30th Article... Read the full story, February 6th Article... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    June 05, 2017 —
    The Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract. In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.” Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    October 30, 2023 —
    After breaching its duty to defend, the insurer could not take advantage of a California statute allowing insurers to establish rates for defense counsel. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151695 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2023). Edison was an additional insured under a policy issued by Greenwich Insurance Company to Utility Tree Service, Inc. (UTS). UTS contracted with Edison to provide vegetation management services near Edison's transmission lines. The Greenwich policy provided additional insured coverage to third parties to the extent of UTS's obligations under the contract. Edison was sued in numerous lawsuits for property damage caused by the Bobcat wildfire in the Angeles National Forest (Bobcat Wildfire lawsuits). Edison tendered the defense in each lawsuit to Greenwich. Coverage was denied, however, based on a lack of underlying allegations or extrinsic evidence that Edison's liability resulted from UTS's negligent actions. 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

    Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

    February 22, 2021 —
    January 25, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order (EO) “Ensuring the Future is Made in All America by All of America’s Workers”, which seeks to bolster U.S. manufacturing through the federal procurement process. Note that, just six day earlier, on January 18, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Counsel issued a final rule implementing former President Trump’s July 2019 EO, titled “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials” (EO No. 13881) on the then-current Buy American standards. For context, Trump’s proposed revisions – adopted and implemented by the FAR Council earlier this year – imposed three (3) significant changes worth noting: (1) increasing the percentage of domestic content (other than iron or steel) from 50% to 55% that an end product must contain in order to qualify as a “domestic end product”; (2) implementing an even higher increase in the domestic content requirement for iron and steel products to at least 95% U.S. “predominately” iron or steel product; and (3) increasing the price evaluation preference for domestic offerors from 6% to 20% (for other than small business) and 30% (for small businesses). The FAR’s rule became effective January 21, 2021, and applies to solicitations issued on or after February 22, 2021, and resulting contracts let. Biden’s EO rescinds Trump’s EO No. 13881 “to the extent inconsistent with [Biden’s] EO.” However, when dissected, it is clear Biden’s Buy American plan does little to modify thresholds inconsistent with the Trump Administration; rather, the White House’s latest EO implements changes in the form of BA administration. Nonetheless, Biden’s EO does expressly note that it supersedes and replaces Trump’s EO on the same issues. Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees and Nicole Lentini, Gordon & Rees Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com Ms. Lentini may be contacted at nlentini@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    May 25, 2020 —
    We all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams. The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic. Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com