BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield 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


    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Court Orders City to Pay for Sewer Backups

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

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

    Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    COVID-19 Response: Executive Order 13999: Enhancement of COVID-19-Related Workplace Safety Requirements

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/24/24) – Omni Hotels Hit with Cyberattack, Wisconsin’s Low-Interest Loans for Home Construction, and Luxury Real Estate Sales Increase

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Time To “Construct” New Social Media Policies
    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

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    January 28, 2015 —
    The billionaire founder of closely held China Pacific Construction Group sued six local governments in a bid to force payment of 900 million yuan ($144 million) his company is owed for infrastructure projects. Yan Jiehe said today he was trying to prove a point and winning the lawsuits wasn’t his main goal. Courts in Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hunan and Shandong provinces accepted the cases, he said in an interview. “We cannot let the governments work without any supervision anymore,” Yan said. “The results of the lawsuits are not that important to me and I care more about rule of law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    January 04, 2023 —
    On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    August 19, 2015 —
    The federal district court applied California law to find there was no coverage when the subcontractor was sued for broken tiles on a project. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015). The subcontractor installed stone floor tiles at the project. The developer discovered fractures in some of the tiles. The fractured tiles were removed and replaced. This remediation process required the removal and replacement of portions of drywall and concrete subfloor installed by other subcontractors. The developer sued the subcontractor, who tendered the defense to its insurer. The insurer denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage for the floor tile fracture claims. 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

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    September 25, 2018 —
    A few miles outside the city limits of Austin, Texas, construction work is expected to soon begin on the Austin Ridge Bible Church’s tri-level, 80,000-square-foot building. The building will house a 2,500-seat sanctuary, classrooms and other spaces where congregants can gather for prayer and fellowship. When the project is completed, scheduled for the end of 2019, it will produce a worship place that will significantly reduce the building’s energy costs in the years ahead. Reprinted courtesy of Norma Lehman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    July 03, 2022 —
    Since the end of March, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued decisions in favor of the defense concerning New York Labor Law §240 and §241. These pro-defendant decisions take a narrow view of the scope of the Labor Law provisions. However, while it remains to be seen how the Court’s below will apply the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, these recent decisions are beneficial for the defense bar going forward. In Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J March 22, 2022 N.Y. LEXIS 391 | 2022 NY Slip Op 01955 | 2022 WL 837579, the Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6). In Toussaint Plaintiff, who was an employee of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., brought the lawsuit against the Port Authority asserting claims under Labor Law § 200 (1) and Labor Law § 241 (6) after he was struck by a power buggy while operating a rebar-bending machine at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Power buggies are small, self-operated vehicles used to move materials on construction sites. On the day of the accident, a trained and properly designated operator drove the buggy into the area near the plaintiff's workstation. That vehicle operator got off the vehicle, but short time thereafter, another worker—who was not designated or trained to do so—drove the buggy a short while prior to losing control and striking plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) which states that “[no person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy.” In rejecting plaintiff’s argument the Court held that the "trained and competent operator" requirement is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Matthew Feinberg, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Feinberg may be contacted at mfeinberg@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    July 15, 2019 —
    For nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case. Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    May 31, 2021 —
    The Arkansas Dept. of Transportation (ARDOT) has terminated the employee responsible for inspecting the Interstate-40 Mississippi River bridge after two-year-old drone footage revealed the presence of a tie-beam fracture that forced last week’s emergency shutdown. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, 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

    BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors

    October 11, 2017 —
    Blok, listed as one of the Hottest 100 European Startups by Wired UK, has secured several renowned investors to promote the company’s product development and marketing in its second round of financing. The Helsinki-based startup company aims to revolutionize the housing market through automation and artificial intelligence. Blok believes that the future of the housing market will be on the Internet, where intelligent technology is opening up new opportunities for disrupting traditional business models. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi