BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    National Coalition to Provide Boost for Building Performance Standards

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    Why Employees Are Taking Ownership of Their Architecture Firms

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/01/23) – Mass Timber, IIJA Funding, and Distressed Real Estate

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2023 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Toddler Crashes through Window, Falls to his Death

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

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

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    The G2G Year in Review: 2021

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/08/23) – The Build America, Buy America Act, ESG Feasibility, and University Partnerships

    Penn Station’s Revival Gets a $1.6 Billion Down Payment

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

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

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership
    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

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    May 13, 2019 —
    In a decision released on March 31, in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for Idaho held, without benefit of oral argument, that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion for summary judgment should be granted, and accordingly, the Sacketts had violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by making improvements to 0.63 acres of land they owned without a required CWA permit when the land qualified as a “wetlands.” The EPA had determined the Sacketts’ “property is subject to the CWA because it contains wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake, a traditionally ‘navigable water,’ and, additionally, their property is wetland adjacent to a tributary and similarly situated to other wetlands and has a significant nexus to Priest Lake.” The District Court rejected the Sacketts’ arguments that their property was not a “wetlands” subject to the CWA. 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

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    January 31, 2014 —
    In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014). Ewing signed an agreement with the School District to serve as general contractor to renovate and build additions to a school, including tennis courts. After construction was completed, the tennis courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking. The School District filed suit, alleging breach of contract and negligence. 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

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    April 06, 2011 —

    On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.

    The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.

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

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

    February 19, 2024 —
    Engineering firm Veolia North America agreed to a $25-million settlement to resolve a federal class action case related to its work for the city of Flint, Mich., during the city’s lead-in-water crisis, the company and attorneys for the plaintiffs announced Feb. 1. Veolia is the second engineering firm that worked for the city to settle with city residents, and the deal came ahead of a class-action trial scheduled to start later this month. 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

    Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

    June 15, 2017 —
    In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):
    If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.
    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    June 26, 2014 —
    Despite a “no cracks” welding code and contract provision for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, in 2008 Caltrans proceeded with the project despite welding cracks created by the Chinese firm hired to build the roadway, according to the Sacramento Bee. By the time the cracks had been discovered, the costs were at $6.5 billion and climbing, and fixing the cracks would be time-consuming and expensive. However, there is some dispute as to rather the welding “cracks represent a hazard to the traveling public.” “Examine history,” Brian Maroney, Caltrans’ chief engineer for the bridge, said in a recent interview by the Sacramento Bee. “… Caltrans reviewed major quakes around the globe and never found a case in which weld cracks caused bridge-roadway fractures.” However, the Sacramento Bee reported that there was a case where welding cracks led to fractures. For instance, after the southern California earthquake in 1994 centered in Northridge, the Santa Clara River Bridge “suffered several fractures in steel girders. The breaks were traced to tiny cracks in welds, likely present before the quake, and worsened by vibrations of heavy trucks passing overhead. When the quake struck, the girders fractured.” The Santa Clara bridge did not collapse. Sacramento Bee claimed it remained standing because the I-beam-shaped girders were “not fracture-critical.” However, the Bay Bridge’s “roadway consists of box-girder segments welded together. In effect, they create one contiguous, fracture-critical girder,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, UC Berkeley engineering professor told the Sacramento Bee. “If welds crack and grow rapidly during a large quake, the entire roadway could fail.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    November 16, 2020 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Super Lawyers has named nineteen of our attorneys as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process in which nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. The Super Lawyers designation recognizes the top 5% of attorneys in the U.S. and the Rising Stars designation recognizes the top 2.5% of attorneys in the U.S. under the age of forty, as chosen by their peers and through independent research within their practice area. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman