BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete 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


    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Under Hawaii Law, but All is not Lost for Insured Contractor

    Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

    NTSB Outlines Pittsburgh Bridge Structure Specifics, Finding Collapse Cause Will Take Months

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

    New York's New Gateway: The Overhaul of John F. Kennedy International Airport

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

    Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps
    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

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    August 10, 2020 —
    The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility. Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    October 28, 2015 —
    Home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose at a faster pace in the year ended August, a sign the industry continues to strengthen on improving demand. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values climbed 5.1 percent from August 2014 after rising 4.9 percent in the year ended in July, the group said Tuesday in New York. The gain was the biggest in a year and matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Nationally, prices increased 4.7 percent after a 4.6 percent advance in the 12 months through July. A tight supply has supported price appreciation, which may in turn entice more owners to put their properties on the market as the payoff grows. More homes that are affordable for first-time or young buyers will be needed to keep the housing recovery on track, providing a boost to consumer spending in the process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    May 10, 2021 —
    In Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (No. 303100, filed 4/14/21), Brooke Wexler’s parents insured their residence, which was located in a mountainous high-fire risk area, with a California FAIR Plan Association owner-occupied dwelling policy. The policy only listed Wexler’s parents and did not name Wexler, their adult child, under the policy’s “Insured Name” section. The FAIR Plan expressly disclaimed coverage for “unnamed people,” referred to by the court as the “no-coverage-for-unnamed-persons clause.” FAIR Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 and is a joint reinsurance association created to give homeowners in high risk areas access to basic property insurance and is a self-described “insurer of last resort.” Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    November 06, 2013 —
    Mark M. Palombaro, a former vice president at Simon Property Group, a development firm, has plead guilty to receiving $766,000 from the head of a construction firm in payback for the projects. Robert E. Crawford at Fox Chapel then overbilled for these projects, which were located in Seattle, Washington and Laguna Beach, California, in order that he and Mr. Palombaro would profit. The total value of the projects, overbilling included, was $15 million. The two men settled a civil suit brought by Simon Property Group by paying $3.3 million. Mr. Crawford plead guilty in June. He admitted to bribing Mr. Palombaro. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    September 14, 2017 —
    In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8/30/17), that an insurer’s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase “ongoing operations” in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gary Barrera, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Barrera may be contacted at gbarrera@wendel.com

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    September 20, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Law Journal reported that New Jersey Supreme Court “justices reversed an Appellate Division ruling that found three suits filed against contractors by the Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association on various dates in March and April 2009 and September 2010 were within the six-year limit because the association received notice of construction defects in the building in an engineer's report issued in June 2007.” The justices stated that the statute of limitations is not reset when property changes hands: "An owner of a building cannot convey greater property rights to a purchaser than the owner possessed. If the building's owner knew or reasonably should have known of construction defects at the time of the sale of the property, the purchaser takes title subject to the original owner's right—and any limitation on that right—to file a claim against the architect and contractors." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    October 26, 2017 —
    In Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation. In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    May 23, 2022 —
    Contractors working on federally funded construction projects need to be aware of the new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and amendments to the Buy American Act (BAA) which have expanded the requirement that contractors use domestic goods and materials on their projects. Failure to consider these requirements could have far-reaching impacts. Overview of Domestic-Procurement Laws and Regulations A number of domestic-preference laws exist today, which generally require that certain goods purchased with federal funds must be produced primarily in the United States. Projects affected include Department of Transportation (DOT)-funded highways, public transportation, airports, aviation, and rail, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-funded water infrastructure initiatives, among others. Reprinted courtesy of Chad Theriot, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs) and Stan Millan, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Theriot may be contacted at ctheriot@joneswalker.com Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of