BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

    James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    U.S. Home Prices Climbed 0.1% in July as Gains Slowed

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

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Unlicensed Contractor Shoots for the Stars . . . Sputters on Takeoff

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    2019 Legislative Session

    Vinci Will Build $580M Calgary Project To Avoid Epic Flood Repeat

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    Be Proactive Now: Commercial Construction Quickly Joining List of Industries Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks

    Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    December 31, 2014 —
    Many, if not most, construction contracts that I review during the course of my practice day include a mandatory arbitration clause. Most of these refer in a blanket manner to AAA Construction Industry Rules. The topic for this post is not whether such clauses are enforceable or whether they are one tool in the contracting tool box in a state where the contract is king. I picked the title of this post carefully because I wanted to discuss whether such clauses should be required as a routine part of all construction contracts and, if so, how those clauses can and should be written. I have previously shared my thoughts on mandatory arbitration and its desirability in numerous spots here at Construction Law Musings (you can search arbitration or check out the ADR page for more). In short, my opinion is that arbitration was initially conceived with the purpose of streamlining the dispute resolution process and to correspondingly lower the costs associated with such dispute resolution. Arbitration, when used correctly, can, in certain very industry specific cases, help by using an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators that have some expertise in the particular area of the construction industry or the particular specialized issue that will turn the case one way or the other. All of these goals are good and I applaud them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    September 09, 2011 —

    So few new single-family homes have sold in 2011 that expectations are that this will be the worst year for new homes sales since the Commerce Department started tracking this in 1963. The Harford Courant notes that previously builders created a new supply to which was added homes under foreclosure.

    Ed Leamer, economist and director of UCLA’s Anderson Forecast, says that recovery would be driven by two sectors, manufacturing and construction. “It doesn’t look like there is going to be a big recovery in manufacturing,” he says. “It is going to have to come in housing.”

    The soft housing market, however, is leading to a loss of construction jobs, as reported by the Associated General Contractors of America. As a result, stock prices for the twelve largest publicly-traded home builders have declined 22.7 percent in a market that has declined 4.2 percent overall.

    Read the full story…

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

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    January 09, 2023 —
    The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed insurance coverage for a South Carolina policyholder based on the “axiomatic principle” that an insurer which fails to fully and fairly articulate its potential coverage defenses in a reservation of rights letter loses the right to contest coverage on those grounds. Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owner’s Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 19-2009, 2022 WL 17592121 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2017)). More particularly, in Stoneledge, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam a South Carolina District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association that had successfully sued its general contractors for construction defects and was seeking to recover the damages owed from the contractors’ insurers. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the insurers’ vague reservation of rights letters failed to reserve the defenses on which the insurers purported to deny coverage. The question before the court in Stoneledge was whether the two insurers that had each agreed to defend their respective general-contractor insureds in the homeowner association’s underlying litigation had sufficiently informed their policyholders of their coverage positions. Specifically, the court considered whether the insurers provided notice of their intention to challenge coverage on specific bases and explained why those bases applied in their respective reservation of rights letters. Both of the insurers’ letters followed the typical approach of identifying various policy provisions and exclusions and outlining the general mechanics of those provisions, but they fell short of applying the provisions or exclusions to the facts in the case at hand. Further, the letters stated that the insurers would reevaluate how the provisions applied as the underlying case progressed. One of the insurer’s letters expressed doubt as to coverage but did not offer any analysis on the reasons for the prospective coverage denial. Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    February 28, 2018 —
    Introduction Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward. See A.R.S. § 33-811(C). In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived. Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale. See Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses, 235 Ariz. 21, 326 P.3d 288 (Ct. App. 2014). Our analysis of the Morgan decision can be found here. In Zubia v. Shapiro, 243 Ariz. 412, 408 P.3d 1248 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court revisited the issue of what claims survive a trustee’s sale, and clarified that if a person fails to enjoin a trustee’s sale prior to its occurrence, then that person waives any and all damages claims dependent upon a trustee’s sale. That person does not, however, waive damages claims that are independent of the sale. Thus, determining what types of claims are “dependent” versus “independent” of a trustee’s sale is of critical importance to lenders and borrowers alike. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    September 09, 2019 —
    In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election. The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR). Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    February 08, 2021 —
    By Administrative Order effective February 1, 2021, New York’s Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court will incorporate a number of changes to the general part that reflect many of New York’s Commercial Division Rules, in an effort to streamline court processes. The general part rule changes are a step forward for improving the efficiency, modernization and cost-effectiveness of the New York Courts, and will require practitioners to be more conscientious of court appearances and deadlines. Judges will likely be strict on adherence to the new Uniform Rules. Some notable changes to the rules are highlighted below. Court Appearances and Scheduling Orders Uniform Rule 202.1 has been revised to require that counsel who appear before the court must be familiar with the case they are appearing for, and be fully prepared and authorized to discuss and resolve the issues that are the subject of the appearance. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew I. Hamelsky, White and Williams LLP, Jenifer A. Scarcella, White and Williams LLP and Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    July 23, 2014 —
    Smithsonian Magazine reported on a new U.S. trend of blending farms and housing developments: The concept is called Development Supported Agriculture (DSA), or more commonly known as “Agrihoods.” In a DSA, “consumers pledge money or resources to support a farm operation, and in turn, receive a share of what it produces, but take the concept one step further by integrating the farm within residential developments.” Residents receive similar perks of being a part of a home owner association such as supported pools, tennis courts, and playgrounds through their contribution to the farm. The first DSA, Prairie Crossing, was built in Grayslake, Illinois to preserve land while adding about 350 residential homes. Willowsford, a new DSA being built in Ashburn Virginia, will have over 2,000 homes. Willowsford’s developers have preserved 2,000 acres, with 300 acres of farmland. The development will be broken into four villages, and each will have its own farm. Part of the popularity of DSAs is that they may “require less of an investment than other green space communities—for instance, communities planned around golf courses,” according to Smithsonian Magazine. “What does it cost to leave the open space alone in the first place? Almost nothing,” said Ed McMahon, the Charles E. Fraser chair on sustainable development and environmental policy at the Urban Land Institute, as quoted by Smithsonian Magazine. “A light bulb went off in the mind of savvy developers who said, ‘Jeez, I can build a golf course development without the golf course.’ So that led to designing communities around other green-space amenities such as a farm.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    November 18, 2011 —

    Hernando County, just north of Tampa on Florida’s west coast, has suspended impact fees for a year, hoping to spur development. Hernando Today reports that the move drew applause from the audience at the county commissioners meeting. Many of those in attendance were builders or members of the Greater Hernando Chamber of Commerce.

    Not all were convinced. Frankie Burnett, the mayor of Brooksville, told the commissioners that his city council were not convinced that this would spur development. “Development should pay its fair share, even in slow economic times.” Burnett’s letter to the board warned that “if lowering impact fees succeeded in stimulating more residential overbuilding, it would only further depress the current real estate market.”

    Read the full story…

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