BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant 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


    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    Get Creative to Solve Your Construction Company's Staffing Challenges

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Will AI Completely Transform Our Use of Computers?

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

    Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

    Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    Effective July 1, 2022, Contractors Will be Liable for their Subcontractor’s Failure to Pay its Employees’ Wages and Benefits

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex
    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

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    June 06, 2018 —
    In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    November 05, 2014 —
    The New Jersey Law Journal reported that "[a]n affordable housing advocacy group in New Jersey is asking the state Supreme Court to remove from the administration of Gov. Chris Christie the authority to determine municipalities’ obligations for low- and moderate-income housing and to instead place that responsibility in the hands of trial judges." New Jersey's state constitution mandates affordable housing obligations (referred to as the Mount Laurel decisions). “It is no longer possible to trust that COAH can or will faithfully implement the Mount Laurel doctrine,” wrote the center’s associate director, Kevin Walsh, in the motion to enforce litigants’ rights, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. “This should be the end; there should be no more extensions, no further last chances.” Municipalities are protected from being sued by developers, however, last year the court stated "that it would consider lifting that protection if COAH failed to adopt new regulations that passed constitutional muster," according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    August 24, 2020 —
    There are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend? Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997). Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo E. Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    April 02, 2024 —
    After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects. Reprinted courtesy of Fred Hedberg, Robinson & Cole LLP and William Stoll, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Mr. Stoll may be contacted at wstoll@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    May 19, 2014 —
    Blaine Brownell in Architect Magazine discussed how recently some designers have created items to deal with urban pollution, however, the creations themselves are more politically-charged than practical. Brownell lists recent examples of architects and designers “perverse” creations: “Notable smog-inspired works include the Aegis Parka, a protective jacket created by Dutch design studio Nieuwe Heren; a palladium dichloride coat that changes color in the presence of carbon dioxide emissions and is designed by London-based artist Lauren Bowker; and R&Sie(n)’s ‘Dustyrelief’ building in Bangkok, designed to collect atmospheric dust via an electrostatically-charged facade.” “Perhaps such proposals—and the disarming irony they conjure—will motivate the changes necessary to clean up our act,” Brownell concluded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    January 13, 2020 —
    The pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts. The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone. In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401. 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

    Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

    January 23, 2023 —
    Atlanta, Ga. (January 12, 2023) - Atlanta Appellate Partners Seth M. Friedman and Christopher Meeks obtained a significant appellate win on behalf of a city in North Carolina when the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying case, Lewis Brisbois’ client was sued for injuries that occurred during the construction of a dog park. The city moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the doctrine of governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion and held that the city waived its governmental immunity through the purchase of a liability insurance policy. Lewis Brisbois was subsequently retained to handle the appeal. Before the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Lewis Brisbois argued, on behalf of its client, that well-established North Carolina law, along with a particular provision in the city’s insurance policy, rendered the city immune from the plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court agreed, holding that the city was immune from all liability and entitled to summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court's full opinion can be read here. Reprinted courtesy of Sam Friedman, Lewis Brisbois and Christopher Meeks, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Friedman may be contacted at Seth.Friedman@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Meeks may be contacted at Christopher.Meeks@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    November 27, 2013 —
    A failure in the installation of a 13-ton concrete panel in Milwaukee County lead to the death of a 15-year-old boy in 201; two others were also injured. A lawsuit over this has concluded with the contractor, Advance Cast Stone, found culpable due to their concealing that the panel was not installed as prescribed. The incident happened at a parking garage operated by the county. Advanced Cast Stone made the claim that the method they used to secure the panel had been approved by other in the project. The jury awarded $6.3 million to the estate of Jared Kellner, $1.5 million each to the young man who was injured, Eric Wosniki, and his parents. The county was also awarded $6 million for lost revenue in the parking garage and for repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of