BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnesses
    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


    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    Endorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Claim

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    California Plant Would Convert Wood Waste Into Hydrogen Fuel

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

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

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    For Breach of Contract Claim, There Needs to be a Breach of a Contractual Duty

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Too Soon?”

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    What Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?
    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

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    January 21, 2015 —
    Manhattan real estate agent Lisa Gustin listed a four-bedroom Tribeca loft for $7.45 million in October, expecting a quick sale. Instead, she cut the price this month by $550,000. “I thought for sure a foreign buyer would come in,” said Gustin, a broker at Brown Harris Stevens who is still marketing the 3,800-square-foot (353-square-meter) apartment at 195 Hudson St. “So many new condos are coming up right now. They’ve been building them for the past few years and now they’re really hurting the resales.” Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Oshrat Carmiel and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    September 06, 2023 —
    The insurer’s right of subrogation is equitable in nature, even if not based in contract. However, since the insurer steps into the shoes of its insured and is limited to the rights of its insured, an integral part of the investigation process is determining what rights the insured has. Whether or not the insured can settle with the tortfeasor and that whether the settlement would also apply to the subrogated carrier is a question the Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, recently addressed. In Utica First Ins. Co. v. Homeport I LLC, et al., No. 150448/2022, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured, SI Waterfront Management Inc. (SI Waterfront), owned and operated a restaurant called Wynwood at 24 Navy Pier Court in Staten Island, New York. The owner of the property was Homeport I LLC (Homeport). Significant construction work pertaining to plumbing and draining lines at the property was done by Ironstate Holdings, LLC (Ironstate), the plumbing portion of which was conducted by subcontractor Claire Construction Corp. (Claire). As a result of the construction work, on June 8, 2021, SI Waterfront allegedly sustained property damage from flooding. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    February 28, 2022 —
    In a recent case decided by Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC v. Headwaters Development Group LLC,[1] the court held that parties to an arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate related claims with non-parties to the agreement based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The case involved six joint venture agreements to develop three separate properties in Spokane, two joint venture agreements per property. One entity, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC (“DTI”), owned by David Terry, was a partner in each of the six joint venture agreements. DTI joint ventured with S.G. Spady Consulting (“SGSC”) and with Headwaters Development Group LLC (“HDG”) separately for each of the three properties. HDG owned the three properties, and SGSC was to provide construction management advice. Steve Spady was the principal of both HDG and SGSC. Stoneridge was a licensed general contractor, the principal of which was also Steve Spady. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at paul.cressman@acslawyers.com

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    May 10, 2013 —
    Reuters reports that construction spending dropped by 1.7 percent in March, bringing it to the lowest level since August, more than wiping out February’s increase of 1.5 percent. Economists had predicted a mild gain of 0.7 percent. Spending fell due to a 4.1 percent drop in public construction projects, bringing it to its lowest in six and a half years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    February 14, 2022 —
    Atlanta, Ga. (February 11, 2022) - Atlanta Partner Candis R. Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful business leaders in Atlanta. This is the second year in a row she has received this recognition. To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionary by, for example, leading programs for their communities or creating opportunities for employees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

    December 02, 2019 —
    On July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    November 07, 2022 —
    In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants. ITC Site Plan The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ric Macchiaroli, Pillsbury
    Mr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    November 13, 2023 —
    In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
    Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com