BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Effective Strategies for Reinforcing Safety Into Evolving Design Standards

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

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

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

    Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably
    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

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    February 27, 2019 —
    Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    November 05, 2014 —
    Construction lawyers may not ponder the great questions in life. We leave that to the estate planning attorneys. But ponder we do. And the next case, as I’ll explain below, “kind of” answers 10 important mechanics lien questions we construction attorneys toss and turn over at night. Background In Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case Nos. G049907 and G049910 (October 14, 2014), developer Inland-LGC Beaumont, LLC (“Inland”) hired general contractor 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. (“361″) to construct a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont, California. The Kohl’s department store was to be constructed on one parcel of a three-parcel tract. Inland later sold the parcel on which the Kohl’s department store was to be located to Kohl’s and the two other parcels were later acquired by Wells Fargo who foreclosed on the construction loan for the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    July 06, 2020 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partners Anthony Garasi and Jared Christensen in our Las Vegas office, along with Associate August Hotchkin in our Reno office are being recognized as Nevada Legal Elites in the Nevada Business Magazine. The Nevada Legal Elite list includes the top 4 percent of attorneys in the state broken down by location. To qualify, each nominee goes through an extensive verification process resulting in the top attorneys in the state, chosen by their peers. Upon the nomination process closing, each ballot is individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney is verified with the State Bar of Nevada. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    July 28, 2018 —
    Unlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.
    • On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule. The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    October 08, 2014 —
    In Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold. The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic and Blythe Golay Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    June 29, 2017 —
    The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    September 10, 2014 —
    Builder Magazine reported that millennials are currently “inhabiting high-tech, yet cozy student housing and apartments” without having “outsized space expectations,” however, that may change over the next ten years as “their preference for the walkable convenience that often accompanies smaller living spaces will collide head on with their parents’ (and grandparents’) insatiable addiction for square footage.” Regardless, builders may decide to change based upon a younger generation that accepts “efficient spaces.” According to Builder Magazine, Nick Lenhert, executive director at architectural firm KTGY, argued that the young “don’t really want what mom and dad have until they get married. Then all of a sudden things start to revert. They start getting realistic about what they need for the children and what they need for themselves. [Right now,] Gen Y is used to living in small spaces or with roommates because that’s all they can afford.” However, John Thatch, principal and director of design at the architectural and planning firm Dahlin Group, believes that even as millennials get older and conceivably need greater square footage, there is still a possibility that their tendency toward efficient spaces will continue: “I’m hoping this is the generation [that pulls in house size] because our generation went gigantic. It’s a chance for architects to get back to design smaller, more thoughtful spaces that are flexible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of