BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield 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


    Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition

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

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

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

    To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

    What Lies Beneath

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

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District
    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

    D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

    August 24, 2020 —
    On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    April 27, 2020 —
    Seven Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    January 28, 2015 —
    Lower Manhattan’s Trump Soho, the five-year-old tower that was seized in a foreclosure amid slow sales of its condominiums, may drop its focus on part-time residences and operate most of the property solely as a hotel. The building’s new owner, Los Angeles-based CIM Group, is “stepping away” from marketing the roughly two-thirds of condos that remain unsold, said Gary Schweikert, the building’s managing director. The company is considering converting the unsold units at the tower permanently into hotel rooms, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
    Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    November 06, 2018 —
    eRent has developed a digital equipment management portal for construction equipment. At the very heart of the concept lies the resource efficiency that can be achieved using principles of the sharing economy. Olli Aaltonen, CEO of eRent Solutions, is confident about the platform his company has created: “Besides offering a digital solution to a rather inefficient workflow in the construction business, we are also introducing a way to track and manage your construction equipment, whether it is owned, rented, or leased. The cost savings are obvious we believe our tracking feature brings our customers even more value.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    October 07, 2016 —
    Keith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote. Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    December 02, 2015 —
    As anticipated in a prior CGDRB 2015 Bulletin that discussed the Fifth Appellate District Court’s noteworthy opinion in McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist), the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision. The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict of authority presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court’s opinion in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and the Fifth Appellate District Court’s rejection of the Liberty Mutual holding in McMillin Albany. In Liberty Mutual, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims [violations of SB 800’s building standards] that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB 800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all construction defect claims arising out new residential construction are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act [SB800], including specifically, the requirement that the claimant provide the builder with notice and an opportunity to repair prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the Court, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars. Our firm will be closely monitoring this case, the outcome of which will significantly impact pre-litigation construction defect claims going forward. We will provide updates as to further activities and the Supreme Court’s decision. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    June 25, 2019 —
    We’ve seen an uptick in out-of-state companies working on construction projects in New Mexico. The following is an overview of some of the nuances of New Mexico construction law about which companies may want to be aware. Construction Contract Issues Limitation of Liability Clauses are usually Enforceable, but Anti-Indemnity Clauses Are Not New Mexico courts have enforced limitation of liability clauses included in construction contracts. See Fort Knox Self Storage, Inc. v. W. Techs., Inc., 140 N.M. 233, 237 (N.M. Ct. App 2006). New Mexico law recognizes the difference between contracts that insulate a party from any and all liability and those that simply limit liability. Fort Knox Self Storage, Inc., 140 N.M. 233 at 237. An exculpatory clause immunizes a party from liability, whereas a limitation of liability clause merely curtails liability. Id. A limitation of liability clause has been held not to violate New Mexico public policy because the party “still bears substantial responsibility for its actions.” Id.; see also Cowan v. D'Angelico, 2010 WL 11493789, *6 (D. N.M. Apr. 26, 2010). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Walker F. Crowson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Crowson may be contacted at wcrowson@swlaw.com