BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    Jarred Reed Named to the National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List for Second Consecutive Year

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    A WARNing for Companies

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/08/23) – The Build America, Buy America Act, ESG Feasibility, and University Partnerships

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

    The Future of Airport Infrastructure in a Post-Pandemic World

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
    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

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    September 23, 2019 —
    Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

    March 29, 2017 —
    On March 17th, House Bill 17-1279, concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action, was introduced and assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill is currently scheduled for its first committee hearing on March 29th, at 1:30 in the afternoon. While, on its face, this appears to be a step in the right direction towards instituting “informed consent” before an HOA can file a construction defect action, the bill actually restricts the ability of developer to include more stringent requirements in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for an association, thereby lowing the threshold of “consent” required to institute an action. House Bill 17-1279 would amend C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 to require an association’s executive board to mail or deliver written notice of the anticipated commencement of a construction defect action to each unit owner and to call a meeting of the unit owners to consider whether to bring such an action. Any construction professional against which a claim may attend the unit owners’ meeting and have an opportunity to address the unit owners and may include an offer to remedy any defect in accordance with C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5(3). The conclusion of the meeting would initiate a 120-day voting period, during which period the running of any applicable statutes of limitation or repose would be tolled. Pursuant to this bill, an executive board may only institute a construction defect action only if authorized by a simple majority of the unit owners, not including: 1) any unit owned by any construction professional, or affiliate of a construction professional, involved in the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the project; 2) any unit owned by a banking institution; 3) any unit owned in which no defects are alleged to exist, and/or 4) any unit owned by an individual deemed “nonresponsive.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

    August 26, 2024 —
    In Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation. At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    July 23, 2014 —
    Berman Sauter Record & Jardim PC are facing a New Jersey state legal malpractice suit. According to Law 360, condominium associations claimed the law firm “didn't properly name subcontractors as defendants in the associations' complaint over various construction defects, thus blocking them from obtaining damages despite a $1.2 million settlement.” Law 360 reported that the “suit seeks compensatory damages, with interest and costs; reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses for both the instant and underlying complaints; and further relief.” The law firm is no longer active, according to Law 360. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    October 21, 2024 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the insurer's objections on partiality grounds to the insured's appraiser. Biscayne Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Westchester Surpus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19663 (11th Cir. Aug. 6. 2024). Storms damaged buildings at Biscayne Beach Club Condominium. Biscayne Beach filed claims with its insurer, Westchester. Unsatisfied with Westchester's payments, Biscayne Beach sued. Westchester then invoked the appraisal provision in the policy. The district court abated the action so the parties could pursue appraisal. Biscayne Beach appointed Lester Martin, its public adjuster, as its appraiser on a 10 percent contingency fee. Westchester objected because Martinez's retainer created a conflict of interest that would hinder his impartiality. Biscayne Beach then retained Blake Pyka as its appraiser. Westchester appointed its appraiser and and umpire was selected by the parties' two appraisers. 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

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    June 30, 2014 —
    When it comes to Old Hollywood stars, Betty Grable was “the girl with the million-dollar legs.” She also lived in a million-dollar home just four blocks from the Hotel Bel-Air. Located at 1280 Stone Canyon Rd, the house is currently on the market for $13.295 million. “It’s a classic, Hollywood estate,” said listing agent Bjorn Farrugia of Hilton & Hyland. “It’s very picturesque — set back on one of the best streets in Bel-Air.” Grable moved in after the home was built in 1937, the same year she married actor Jackie Coogan (aka “Uncle Fester” in the 1960s sitcom The Addams Family). Soon after, in 1939, the couple appeared in “Million Dollar Legs,” a movie giving rise to the actress’ nickname. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Sherman – Bloomberg

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    April 01, 2015 —
    The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia, 2015 Mont. LEXIS 54 (Mont. Feb. 17, 2015). The insured plumbing company, Lolo Plumbing & Heating, installed a water heater at Famous Dave's restaurant. At the time of installation, the insured had a CGL policy with Truck. The policy provided coverage from July 10, 2006 to November 29, 2009. On March 12, 2010, three years after the water heater was installed, a burning smaell was detected in the restaurant's mechanical room. The fire department turned off the water heater and asked that a plumber look at it. Diamond Plumbing & Heating was called and replaced the combustion air fan assembly, but did not further examine the water heater. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    December 13, 2022 —
    In the federal procurement arena, there is a concept known as “constructive suspension.” Constructive suspension, while known in the federal arena, should reasonably apply to all projects when work is stopped outside of an express order to stop the work based on the law below. An unreasonable suspension is an unreasonable suspension and an express order to stop the work does not negate the effects of what really amounts to a suspension. “Constructive suspension occurs when work is stopped absent an express order by the contracting officer and the government is found to be responsible for the work stoppage.” P.R. Burke Corp. v. U.S., 277 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The government delay must be unreasonable to support a constructive acceleration claim. Id. “To demonstrate such a constructive suspension of work, the contractor must show that the delay (1) was for an ‘unreasonable length of time,’ (2) was proximately caused by the government’s actions, and (3) resulted in some injury to the contractor.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. U.S., 2001 WL 36415627, *6 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (citation omitted). “Relative to proving that the delay was directly caused by the government, the contractor must concomitantly show that it was not delayed by any concurrent cause that would have independently generated the delay during the same time period even if it does not predominate over the government’s action as the cause of the delay.” Beauchamp Const. Co. v. U.S., 14 Cl.Ct. 430, 437 (Cl.Ct. 1988). 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