BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    America’s Factories Weren’t Built to Endure This Many Hurricanes

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

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

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine

    Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

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

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects
    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

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    January 15, 2014 —
    In a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari. Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale. Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Iandiorio may be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    July 31, 2013 —
    Although it’s only about a year old, there are already complaints about construction defects at Lubertha Johnson Estates, a property for low-income seniors in Southern Nevada. The 112-unit project is currently the subject of a construction defect lawsuit, with residents complaining about roof leaks, defective gates, and other problems. Jane Ann Morrison, writing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, also notes that when the director of public housing operations presented resident complaints to the board of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, a few defects seemed to have crept into their complaints, errors that weren’t in the one residents supplied to the reporter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    August 03, 2022 —
    Takeaways
    • The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
    • The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
    • The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
    Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    August 06, 2014 —
    According to the Sacramento Bee, the California Senate’s latest report said that “at least nine top experts for the new $6.5 billion San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge” were “’gagged and banished’” after complaining “about substandard work by the Shanghai, China, firm that built much of the span.” According to the report, reported by the Sacramento Bee, Tony Anziano, Caltrans’ chief executive of the project, “removed or demoted quality-assurance and fabrication engineers who tried to force the contractor to fix cracked roadway welds.” The report did not evaluate the bridge’s quality or safety, however, it “called for greater openness in large construction projects, a review of the weld problems by independent experts, and an investigation of allegations that engineering decisions were made by non-engineers.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    September 22, 2016 —
    The policyholder's attempt to extend the duty to defend analysis beyond the complaint's allegations and the four-corners of the policy failed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 163 (Wis. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2016). 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

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    October 17, 2022 —
    Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb, a Los Angeles based law firm, has unveiled a dynamic new brand. The firm will now be known as “Chapman Glucksman.” The name change reflects the forward thinking and creative approach that the firm brings to its client service. “Chapman Glucksman has always been a firm of innovative thinkers with a keen focus on obtaining very favorable results for our clients. Our new brand captures the firm’s energy and focus,” said Craig Roeb, a shareholder who has spent his entire legal career with the firm. “We are excited about the growth of Chapman Glucksman, with the recent addition of new shareholder, Greg Sabo, partners, Chelsea Zwart and David Weinberger, as well as six new associate attorneys. The continued growth of Chapman Glucksman is a reflection of our strong client loyalty and growth,” said Randall Dean, shareholder and head of the Professional Liability Practice Group. Founded in 1985, Chapman Glucksman is a multi-faceted law firm with offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, Bay Area and Palm Springs. Our AV rated firm has diverse practice groups consisting of highly skilled, experienced, insightful, responsive, pragmatic and creative lawyers who vigorously advocate our client’s interests, and secure result-oriented, favorable and creative solutions to complex issues. Our achievements derive directly from our commitment to providing our clients with an unparalleled level of attention, exceptional work product and a strong work ethic with outstanding results achieved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    October 02, 2013 —
    Knife River Corp was hired by the town of Post Falls, Idaho to do road and sewer construction work. In the process, they interrupted a 6-inch water supply line, sending the water into a wastewater line. From there, the water flooded a home in Post Fall. The city paid more than $7,800 in damages. Post Falls sued Knife River’s insurer for coverage. The city has lost its lawsuit and is responsible for $18,500 in attorneys’ fees. Despite all this, the city administrator says that the city still has a good working relationship with Knife River. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    March 30, 2016 —
    Time is money. And nowhere can than be best observed than on a construction project. Project delays can mean lost profits for owners, liquidated damages for general contractors, and increased material, labor, field overhead, and home office overhead costs for general contractors and subcontractors alike. Pricing the impact of delays, however, can be thorny. Particularly, for home office overhead. 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