BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architect 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


    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

    Do We Need Blockchain in Construction?

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    More Business Value from Drones with Propeller and Trimble – Interview with Rory San Miguel

    Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

    Can Baltimore Get a Great Bridge?

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Hawaii Federal District Court Compels Appraisal

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Los Angeles Wildfires Rage on, Destroying Structures and Displacing Residents

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling
    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

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    December 21, 2016 —
    A recent series of dynamic tests demonstrates that there are several types and doses of steel-fiber reinforcement that can be used in performance-based seismic design of coupling beams—headers that link openings in concrete shear walls—to reduce rebar congestion. The tests, performed at the University of Wisconsin, are called “a step in the right direction” by the structural engineer who pioneered the use of SFR concrete. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    May 03, 2017 —
    Getting a notification from OSHA that your company is being investigated for a health or safety violation is an unwanted disruption to your business that could lead to a hefty monetary fine. Worse yet, if your company is found to have committed multiple violations, OSHA may categorize your company as a severe violator, which makes you subject to follow-up inspections. In the last 6 years, OSHA has added 520 companies to the Severe Violator Enforcement Program - sixty percent of which are in the construction industry. New OSHA regulations impacting the construction industry may result in more companies facing investigations and fines, or worse yet, laying off workers and unable to compete for new work. In 2013, OSHA proposed a new mandate to reduce silicosis in workers. The mandate, which was revised multiple times before being made final in March 2016, requires that employers ensure their workers are exposed to no more than 50 micrograms of crystalline silica in an eight hour period (down from the current standard of 250 micrograms). Under the new mandate, employers are also held to heightened reporting requirements, protective measures and medical testing for employees with extended exposure to silica. In the construction industry alone, OSHA believes the new mandate will prevent 1,080 cases of silicosis and more than 560 deaths. Builder and trade groups believe the new mandate will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost the building industry billions of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the Silica Rule will cost homebuilders $1,500 per start. While the two sides mount their arguments and seek support, how to implement the rule and its long term feasibility are still contested questions. Recognizing the challenges employers will have with the heightened requirements of the Silica Rule, OSHA just announced that enforcement is being delayed 90 days to develop additional guidance for implementation of the rule in the construction industry. The new start date for enforcement of the Silica Rule is September 23, 2017.* Many in the industry are hoping the Trump administration repeals the Silica Rule like they have “blacklisting” and the Volks rule. However, until that happens, OSHA expects your company to implement processes to ensure compliance by the new start date. *The Silica Rule was adopted by Cal/OSHA in August 2016 even though Cal/OSHA’s own silica standard had been in place since 2008. Cal/OSHA adopted the federal standard with the June 23, 2017 effective date; however; in an effort to synchronize with OSHA, Cal/OSHA recently announced that the effective date in California will also be September 23, 2017. Nathan Owens is the Las Vegas Managing Partner of Newmeyer & Dillion, and represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. For questions related to the OSHA and the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Nathan.Owens@ndlf.com. Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer is an associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office. Dutch’s practice concentrates on the areas of business litigation, labor and employment law, and construction litigation. For questions related to OSHA or the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Dutch.Schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

    April 22, 2019 —
    On February 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City of Roanoke, et al.; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation was an Intervenor-Defendant. The Fourth Circuit held that a large stormwater management fee (stated to be $417,000.00 for the year 2017) levied by the City of Roanoke against the railroad to assist in the financing of the City’s permitted municipal stormwater management system was a permissible fee and not a discriminatory tax placed on the railroad. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 specifically provides that states and localities may not impose any tax that discriminates against a rail carrier, 49 U.S.C. § 11501. Accordingly, the issue confronting the Fourth Circuit was whether the assessment was fee and not a tax. 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

    Claim Against Broker Survives Motion to Dismiss

    January 25, 2021 —
    The insured's complaint against its broker for failure to secure adequate coverage survived a motion to dismiss. Broecker v. Conklin Prop., LLC, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7399 (Dec. 2, 2020). Conklin Property, LLC purchased real property and entered into a contract with JJC Contracting, Inc. for construction and renovation of the property. The broker, Total Management Corp. (TMC) was retained by Conklin to secure insurance for the construction phase of the renovation project. During the renovation, an employee of JJC was injured at the property and died. The employee's estate then sued Conklin. US Underwriters, the insurer, disclaimed coverage pursuant to an exclusion for bodily injury to contractors and subcontractors and their workers. 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

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    December 23, 2024 —
    A major developer in downtown Seattle defaulted on a loan backed by two of its most prized office properties, including one that formerly housed a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Firms tied to Martin Selig Real Estate are in default on a more than $200 million loan, according to letters from lender Acore Capital dated Nov. 15 that were filed in Washington’s King County. The buildings would change ownership 30 days after that notice if no other action is taken, according to the letters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna Edgerton, Bloomberg

    Roots of Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Reach Back a Decade

    August 05, 2013 —
    Recent court documents in the Las Vegas HOA scandal reveal that the late Nancy Quon, thought to be a mastermind in the scam was involved with a similar case before 2001. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the Nevada attorney general’s office launched an investigation of the Starfire condominium complex. Claims were made that an architect and a construction company attempted to fill the Starfire board with straw buyers. Quon represented a resident to filed a claim over defective windows. Chris Rasmussen, the attorney for Edith Gillespie, Leon Benzer’s half sister, has noted that his client was not charged in the Starfire case, but the Review-Journal notes that no one was, as the insurance company settled quickly, which ended the chances for a criminal investigation. The Starfire case is described as “a $6 million lawsuit based on fraudulent construction defect claims.” Quon, Benzer, and their co-conspirators are alleged to have modeled their subsequent actions after Starfire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    January 06, 2012 —

    November 2011 marked the first anniversary of the Construction Defect Journal. During the first year our staff and contributors in the insurance and legal communities have compiled several hundred articles of interest to the construction defect and claims community.

    Each of these articles are maintained in the CDJ archives, and are accessible at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/archives.html. Each story in the archives is listed in the order it was posted to the archives. Each story in the archives opens up in its own page, so you can easily locate topics and articles of interest.

    If you’re new to Construction Defect Journal, or just want peruse past articles, please take a moment to visit the CDJ Archives page. Also please feel encouraged to submit your firm’s articles or legal publications of interest to the CD community at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/submitStory.html.

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

    Janus v. AFSCME

    July 18, 2018 —
    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME1. By a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS ruled that public employee unions cannot require non-members to pay union dues, even if those employees are benefiting from the services provided by the union. 28 states already had “right-to-work” laws on the books, meaning that unions in those states were already precluded from collecting fees from non-union members. This ruling makes that ban a national standard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Foltz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Foltz may be contacted at rfoltz@grsm.com