BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    How Are You Dealing with Material Delays / Supply Chain Impacts?

    Adobe Opens New Office Tower and Pledges No Companywide Layoffs in 2023

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    Wilke Fleury Welcomes New Civil Litigation Attorney

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Just How Climate-Friendly Are Timber Buildings? It’s Complicated

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage
    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. Drawing 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

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    November 23, 2016 —
    On November 22, 2016, a Texas federal court issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing and enforcing its revised white collar overtime regulations nationwide. The regulations were to take effect on December 1, 2016. For background on the DOL's Final Rule, see our alert, DOL Issues Final Rule Amending Overtime Exemptions Under FLSA. The decision was issued in a consolidated set of cases brought by 21 states and several business organizations. The cases challenge the changes to 29 C.F.R. Part 541, which defines the standards for evaluating whether employees are exempt executive, administrative, and/or professional employees. Under the current regulations, the minimum salary requirement for these exemptions is $455 per week. Under the revised regulations, the minimum salary would more than double to $913 per week. The Texas court found that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the final regulations has a substantial likelihood of success and that the plaintiffs have shown that they would be irreparably harmed if the rule was not enjoined. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com

    'You're Talking About Lives': The New Nissan Stadium

    August 26, 2024 —
    The new Tennessee Titans sports complex rising up on the banks of the Cumberland River in Nashville is a big project no matter how you look at it. Nissan Stadium will have 60,000 seats, cover 1.85 million square feet and cost an estimated $2.1 billion. Four contractors are involved, operating under a joint venture called the Tennessee Builders Alliance: Turner Construction Co., AECOM Hunt, Polk & Associates Construction and I.C.F. Builders & Consultants. And nearly 20,000 workers will play a role over the project’s three-year timeline. The sheer size and scope of the job led Tyler White, TBA’s environmental health and safety director, to think that the project needed to approach safety on a similar scale. The result is a first-of-its-kind public-private partnership between the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration and TBA. “I thought it would be a good idea,” White says. “I know they’re stretched thin, but [we’re] very appreciate of advocating and allocating their resources.” Reprinted courtesy of Grace Austin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Have Nearly Finished Technical Work

    March 11, 2024 —
    Newly analyzed evidence in the investigation into the June 2021 partial collapse of Champlain Towers South that killed 98 people in Surfside, Fla., shows that the pool deck collapsed more than four minutes before the tower itself. But investigators are still working to determine the initiating event, and aim to finish their technical work this summer. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    September 01, 2011 —

    In Weitz Co., LLC v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado was asked to rule on a motion to disqualify counsel in an insurance coverage action. 11-CV-00694-REB-BNB, 2011 WL 2535040 (D. Colo. June 27, 2011). Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with suspicion, as courts “must guard against the possibility that disqualification is sought to ‘secure a tactical advantage in the proceedings.’” Id. at *2 (citing Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (D. Colo. 1996).

    Weitz Company, LLC (“Weitz”) is a general contractor and defendant in an underlying construction defect suit which had concluded before the action bringing rise to this order. In the underlying action, Weitz made third-party claims against subcontractors, including NPW Contracting (“NPW”). Weitz was listed as an additional insured under NPW’s policies with both Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (collectively “the Carriers”). The Carriers accepted Weitz’s tender of defense under a reservation of rights. However, neither insurance carrier actually contributed to Weitz’s defense costs in the underlying action. At the conclusion of the construction defect action, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to apportion the attorney’s fees and costs. Eventually, Weitz brought suit against the recalcitrant carriers. The Lottner firm, which had previously represented Weitz in the underlying construction defect action, continued to represent Weitz in this coverage action. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com

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

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    July 05, 2021 —
    Answering a certified question, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the insurer could calculate actual cash value (ACV) by including an estimate of the depreciation of embedded labor costs. Butler v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 S. C. LEXIS 51 (S.C. May 12, 2021). Two insureds had their homes damaged in separate fires. Each held homeowners' policies with Travelers. The policies provided replacement cost value coverage to repair or replace damaged portions of homes. In the event that the insures chose not to immediately repair or replace the damaged home, the policies afforded payment to the insured for the actual cash value instead of replacement cost value. Both insured elected not to immediately repair or replace their homes, thereby deciding to accept a cash payment for the ACV of the damaged property. Neither was satisfied with the payment and both filed suit in federal district court. Travelers determined the ACV payment by estimating the replacement cost value (RCV) of the damage and then subtracting depreciation. The certified question presented by the federal district court was whether Travelers could depreciate the labor component of the costs of repair or replacement when determining the ACV. 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

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    January 13, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's issuance of summary judgment based upon the possibility of continuing property damage during the insurer's policy period. Tidwell Enters. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016). Financial Pacific insured Greg Tidwell, Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. and Tidwell Enterprises Fireplace Division (Tidwell) under CGL policies issued between March 2003 and March 2010. In 2006 or 2007, Tidwell installed a fireplace in a home. On November 11, 2011, 20 months after the end of the last policy period of Financial Pacific's coverage, the home owned by Kendall Fox, was damaged by fire. Fox was insured by State Farm. State Farm's attorney advised Tidwell of the fire, and Tidwell forwarded the information to Financial Pacific. State Farm hired an investigator who reported that the fire was caused by the installation of an "unlisted shroud at the top of the chimney chase". This prevented the fireplace from drafting properly, resulting in overheating of the fireplace and heat transfer to the surround wood framing members. This resulted in the ignition of the framing members at the sides, top and bottom of the fireplace. State Farm sent the report to Financial Pacific. 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

    Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

    September 20, 2021 —
    Courts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions. But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens? In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative. Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard. Despite many of these structures being uninhabitable, unsanitary, and dangerous, multiple families resided on the lot. Although Sonoma County (the “County”) ordered the owner to remediate the property several times, he failed and refused to do so. After several years of these violations going unabated, the County ultimately sought and obtained the appointment of a receiver over the real property. To obtain funds necessary to repair the property, the receiver asked the court for permission to borrow money through the issuance of a receivership certificate to be secured by a super-priority lien—i.e., a lien ahead of all other liens—against the real property. Although the trial court initially declined to prime existing liens, when the receiver could find no one to lend money (since the land lacked equity), the trial court relented and approved a super-priority lien despite the senior secured lender’s objection (the “lender”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    February 16, 2016 —
    The court granted portions of the business interruption claim, while denying other portions. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Infogroup, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162810 (S. D. Iowa Nov. 30, 2015). Phoenix insured Infogroup's business buildings and personal business property, including data and data processing equipment. In late May 2011, warnings were issued of possible flooding from the Missouri River. On June 1, 2011, Infogroup moved and relocated its business operations and data centers away from the river and did not intend to return to the facilities. On July 19, 2011, Phoenix advanced $500,000 to Infogroup for anticipated claims under the policy. On August 22, 2011, heavy rain left surface water in the parking lot at Infogroup's facilities. Infogroup claimed that it suffered minor property damage during July and August, 2011, including damage to an uninterruptable power source and damage to a server. 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