BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

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

    Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    The Great Skyscraper Comeback Skips North America

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Get Creative to Solve Your Construction Company's Staffing Challenges

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Hunton Insurance Group Advises Policyholders on Issues That Arise With Wildfire Claims and Coverage – A Seven-Part Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series

    Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)
    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

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    April 02, 2014 —
    Craig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor explained the importance of knowing when to provide notice under your construction contract: “Time and time again, courts rule that contractors must follow notice requirements in order to submit a claim for additional time or compensation.” Martin cited the case JEM Contracting v. Morrison-Maierle, where the contractor provided verbal notice of a claim to the engineer, but failed to submit in writing until eighteen days later, which was past the notice requirement as stated in the contract. The judge denied the contractor’s claim and sided with the engineer and county. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    May 13, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    March 12, 2015 —
    In 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015). The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes. A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head. 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

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    November 28, 2018 —
    The Washington State Supreme Court dealt another blow to public works contractors in Washington State. In a case recently issued by the court, Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, [1] the court expanded contractors’ obligations when providing notice on public works construction projects. The Nova Contracting case was the subject of a previous blog. The case involved Nova Contracting and the City of Olympia. Nova was the low bidder on the contract. Nova alleged that the City of Olympia did not want Nova to win the job and intentionally hindered Nova’s ability to perform the job. The facts alleged by Nova, which were covered in the previous blog, involved the City’s improper and apparently punitive rejection of submittals on the job and the City’s eventual wrongful termination of Nova. Of significance in the case is that Nova never actually began work on the job. All that Nova had done at the time of termination was begin mobilizing its equipment on site. The Court of Appeals found that Nova had alleged sufficient facts to establish that the City violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by improperly rejecting Nova’s submissions and had breached the contract with Nova by improperly terminating. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    December 20, 2017 —
    The recent case of Fulton County v. Soco Contracting Company, Inc. addresses two very interesting questions for local government attorneys. First, can a county ordinance bolster a defense of sovereign immunity against a contractor’s claims? Second, can a county waive sovereign immunity by failing to respond to Requests for Admission? Facts: County hired Contractor to construct a facility near the airport. The contract provided that change orders must satisfy a county ordinance, which required approval by the Board of Commissioners. But in emergency situations, the County Manager could approve change orders, as long as the contractor executes a proposed modification and the purchasing agent approves it. The project suffered substantial delays, which Contractor attributed to weather, design delays, delays by the County in providing decisions on changes, and delays in obtaining permits during the federal government’s shutdown. As a result of these issues, Contractor comes County changed the scope of the contract. Contractor asserted claims against County for the delays and the changes to the work. The appellate opinion addresses the change order claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lizbeth Dison, Autry Hall & Cook, LLP

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    January 29, 2014 —
    According to the Uptown Messenger, structural issues found at Audubon Charter School’s Broadway campus in New Orleans, Louisiana, will require “selective demolition” and “could delay students’ return by as much as a full year.” Late September of last year, “officials discovered that some of the steel supports around the stair towers were not level—some of the steel beams lean out several inches, so that the floors are not parallel.” Discovering the problem will require some demolition, according to Chris Young of Blitch Knevel architects as quoted in the Uptown Messenger: “…we’re going to have to tear down a lot of this construction to expose that steel frame to make sure that every steel beam is straight and true and not deformed.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    January 13, 2020 —
    The pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts. The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone. In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401. 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

    CSLB Reminds California Public Works Contractors to Renew Their Public Works Registration

    October 02, 2015 —
    A friendly reminder from the Contractors State License Board . . . CSLB Urges Public Works Contractors to Renew Dept. of Industrial Relations Registration before October 1 to Avoid Hefty Penalty SACRAMENTO — A mandatory renewal deadline is approaching for licensees who work on public works projects. Contractors whose registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) expired June 30, 2015, and have ongoing public works projects or plan to bid on new ones, must pay the $300 renewal fee before October 1, 2015, or face an additional $2,000 late penalty after that date. As a result of Senate Bill (SB) 854, all contractors have been required since April 1, 2015, to register with DIR to be awarded a public works contract, even if the project did not go out to bid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com