BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut structural concrete 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


    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

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

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

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

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

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

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    "Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous

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

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage
    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

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    August 02, 2017 —
    The magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer, thereby eliminating coverage for property damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103015 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2017). Madelaine Chocolate owned a facility three blocks form the Atlantic Ocean and one block from the Jamaica Bay section of Long Island Sound. Hurricane Sandy arrived October 29, 2012. Madeline Chocolate's facility sustained significant damage to its inventory, production machinery and premises, as storm surge from both bodies of water hit the property. Operations ceased during the 2012 holiday season and beyond, resulting in millions of dollars in lost income. 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

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    October 19, 2020 —
    A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v. Al Crowell, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2020 WL 5951506, plaintiffs sued defendant, a junior lienholder, for quiet title, having failed to name him in the initial judicial foreclosure action. Defendant raised the statute of limitations defense, but the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 60-year statute of limitations which the trial court applied only applied to a nonjudicial trustee’s sale, and the trial court could not exercise the trustee’s power of sale after the expiration of the statute of limitations on a judicial action to foreclose. In 2006, plaintiffs loaned Steve and Marta Weinstein (the “Weinsteins”) $450,000, secured by a deed of trust on one parcel of the Weinstein’s property. In 2007, the Weinsteins and defendant Al Crowell (“Crowell”) recorded a second deed of trust on the property, securing a promissory note executed by the Weinsteins in 2004. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    July 16, 2014 —
    The construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.” How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.” Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project. “In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported. During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    May 30, 2018 —
    In real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms. Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it. But is this actually right? Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject: Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):
    “A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.” “A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bobby Kethcart, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Kethcart may be contacted at rkethcart@swlaw.com

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    July 16, 2023 —
    Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of Florida signed a new law that would prohibit people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose "domicile" is in China from purchasing certain real property in the state. Generally, the prohibition applies to agricultural land and other land within ten miles of restricted areas, including military bases and infrastructure like airports and wastewater treatment plants. The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2023, would also impose criminal penalties on any person or real estate company that knowingly sells real estate in the Sunshine State to anyone impacted by the ban. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Erb, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Erb may be contacted at erbk@whiteandwilliams.com

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    March 04, 2019 —
    When American colonists planned downtown Annapolis, Maryland in 1695, they wanted easy access to the sea. Almost 325 years later, the sea is now closer than ever. It’s so close, in fact, that 16 small businesses lost roughly 2 percent of their revenue in 2017. In a first-of-its-kind study, Stanford University and Naval Academy researchers looked at the effect of sea-level rise on a single city-block. Specifically, they examined sunny-day floods—inundation that occurs when infrastructure built for lower waters is no longer sufficient to keep back the highest tides—at a central parking lot at City Dock. As sea levels rise, these “nuisance floods” are becoming more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the U.S. grew from two per year to nearly 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    March 31, 2014 —
    Law firms seeking to recover attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in fee dispute litigation with their former client should hire outside counsel in order to avoid waiving any entitlement to such fees. Evaluating any potential exposure for a professional negligence claim or cross-claim before filing suit should also be considered. In Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Company, Ltd., et al., No. B242288 (filed March 26, 2014) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a law firm, represented by its own employees and associates, was not entitled to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to the attorney’s fee provision in the retainer agreement. The Soni decision is the latest addition to the general prohibition enunciated by Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 (“Trope”) and its progeny that law firms are precluded from recovering attorney’s fees for self-representation. In Soni, the law firm obtained a $28,384 judgment for delinquent legal fees against a former client. The firm then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, seeking $120,912 as the fees it incurred as the prevailing party under the retainer agreement. The trial court denied the motion based on the general rule set forth in the Trope line of cases that fees are not recoverable where the firm is represented by attorneys employed by the firm, despite the presence in the applicable retainer agreement of a clause notifying the client that fees the law firm would seek if it prevailed would include those for its in-house personnel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    January 28, 2019 —
    While “fulfillment centers” and other e-commerce logistic facilities drive a hot market for the manufacturing sector, traditional construction methods such as tilt-up concrete panels are being pushed to ever-greater heights. At a recent project in Tulsa, Okla., contractor Clayco oversaw installation of tilt-up composite panels that reached 81 ft in height, using an unusual brace and a lot of careful pre-planning. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com