BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield 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


    Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    The Texas Storm – Guidance for Contractors

    Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

    While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    New Mexico Architect Is Tuned Into His State

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Park Avenue Is About to Get Something It Hasn’t Seen in 40 Years

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Texas Shortens Its Statute of Repose To 6 Years, With Limitations

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

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

    At Least 23 Dead as Tornadoes, Severe Storms Ravage South

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    July 20, 2020 —
    The Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America (INVEST in America) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 18, 2020 and is making its way up to Congress. The bill will create millions of jobs and provide substantial investment in the nation’s deteriorating highways, bridges and public transit systems. The bill also endeavors to leave behind a smaller carbon footprint, a major improvement for the nation’s biggest source of carbon pollution. Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of the nation’s infrastructure earns a grade of D+, and there exists an estimated $2 trillion funding gap to bring it into a state of good repair by 2025. While Americans have benefited from a century of infrastructure building, neglect has befallen our once greatest achievements – the roadways and arteries that led to the explosive growth of our nation. In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, by 2016 that number fell to 1.5 percent resulting in the substandard conditions that now confront us. Stated more bluntly, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and immediate investment in required to bring it up to par. The INVEST in America Act is our “immediate” opportunity to start replacing the outdated systems of the past with smarter, safer, and more resilient infrastructure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    February 07, 2014 —
    A Cape Coral, Florida resident is suing the city and construction companies over alleged negligence “for failing to use reasonable care in keeping the construction site safe for pedestrians,” according to News-Press. The lawsuit was filed after a three-year old boy “jumped out of a wagon pulled by his aunt and darted across the construction zone before being” hit and dragged by a vehicle. The boy “suffers neurological problems from the crash.” The defendants wanted to use Facebook posts made by the Plaintiff about the city, contractors, and subcontractors, as evidence. However, the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that the Facebook posts were irrelevant to the case. Todd Robert Falzone, the Plaintiff attorney, said that “it’s becoming more common for defense lawyers to try and introduce social media into any case, but the law is new and there isn’t a lot of guidance for lawyers or judges,” according to News-Press. The defendants’ attorneys did not return News-Press’s calls asking for comments. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    February 23, 2016 —
    The hallmark of a claims-made insurance policy is that the policy only provides coverage for claims that are “first made” during the policy period. As noted by the Texas Supreme Court, “for the insurer, the inherent benefit of a claims-made policy is the insurer's ability to close its books on a policy at its expiration and thus to attain a level of predictability unattainable under standard occurrence policies.”[1] To ensure this “level of predictability,” claims-made insurance policies contain provisions stating that all “Related Claims” will be treated as a single claim deemed first made at the time the earliest of such claims was made. The “Related Claims” provision is an issue that comes up time and again – claims can span years, especially in the context of regulatory investigations, which often culminate in enforcement proceedings and litigation. This inevitably leads to disputes regarding whether later claims can be related back to the earlier claim, an issue that becomes even thornier when different insurers participate on different policy years. Over time, case law on “Related Claims” has been mixed and somewhat inconsistent, with each case tending to hinge on its own unique set of facts, making it difficult to identify a clear standard for determining whether claims are related. However, three recent decisions out of the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits show that courts are increasingly deferring to the plain language of the policy and applying these provisions broadly. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    September 28, 2020 —
    With the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cities and states have mandated infection control practices, including social distancing, mask requirements and sanitization of work areas and tools. As a result, many construction leaders now have questions as to how government guidance related to COVID-19 interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, can a project manager enforce a mask mandate when a construction worker presents a doctor’s excuse noting breathing difficulties? Or, what if the employer is aware that an individual presents a higher risk for severe illness because of an underlying health condition, but that employee does not request an accommodation? Thankfully, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance relating to these requests that construction leaders can reference. While our goal is to summarize that guidance and provide practical advice for the construction sector, this article does not substitute for situation specific legal counsel. SCENARIO 1: AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK AND PRODUCES A DOCTOR’S NOTE CITING BREATHING DIFFICULTIES. MUST THE EMPLOYER ACCOMMODATE SUCH A REQUEST? Potentially. Since the request to not wear a mask is considered an accommodation under the ADA, the employer can still require a doctor’s note when considering the accommodation. Reprinted courtesy of Molly Gwin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Gwin may be contacted at mgwin@isaacwiles.com

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    June 26, 2014 —
    According to The Real Deal, L Lofts condominium developers are involved in an eight million dollar lawsuit for “allegedly failing to correct extensive construction defects in the” Brooklyn, New York “building, including water leaks, defective roof construction and other alleged code violations.” The L Lofts’ board filed suit against the American Development Group on June 19th. However, Perry Finkelman, partner and managing director at American Development Group claimed that the building had been hit by a tornado, making the allegations baseless: “While there may be issues, they weren’t properly addressed at the time. That’s not a sponsor’s responsibility to handle,” as quoted by The Real Deal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    January 28, 2019 —
    On December 18, 2018, Federal Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak recommended in a written opinion that the Motion of Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company (“Weyerhaeuser”) to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) be denied. Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 2018WL6589786 (D. Colo. 2018). As such, we believe District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello will accept this recommendation and the lawsuit will proceed. At interest in this lawsuit are TJI joists designed, manufactured, and sold by Weyerhaeuser for residential construction. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Weyerhaeuser is one of the world’s largest private owners of timberlands, owning or controlling nearly 12.4 million acres in the United States and managing 14 million acres in Canada. It is a public company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange with revenues of $7.2 billion in 2017.[1] In addition to managing forests, Weyerhaeuser has interests in energy, minerals, and wood products. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    February 27, 2019 —
    General Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp. GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Clough, Bloomberg

    Extrinsic Evidence, or Eight Corners? Texas Court Sheds Light on Determining the Duty to Defend

    December 18, 2022 —
    Last year, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a narrow exception to the state’s eight-corners rule, and allowed the consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine the duty to defend. The exception arguably raised more questions than it resolved. Last month, a Texas federal court answered some of these questions by rejecting an insurer’s attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence under the newly minted exception. Texas permits few, if any, deviations from its eight-corners rule, which determines an insurer’s duty to defend by only considering the operative pleading and the terms of the policy, without any regard to extrinsic evidence or facts. This protects policyholders by erring on the side of defending claims, even if coverage is questionable. In Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 640 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. 2022) (“Monroe”), the Texas Supreme Court adopted an exception to the eight-corners rule, holding that extrinsic evidence may be considered when an “information gap” between the pleading and the policy makes it impossible to determine coverage, but only in limited scenarios where the extrinsic evidence (1) goes solely to an issue of coverage and does not overlap with the merits of liability, (2) does not contradict facts alleged in the pleading, and (3) conclusively establishes the coverage fact to be proved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com