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


    Will AI Completely Transform Our Use of Computers?

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

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

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

    More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    Behavioral Science Meets Construction: Insights from Whistle Rewards

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    Happenings in and around the 2015 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned

    Domingo Tan Receives Prestigious Ollie Award: Excellence in Construction Defect Community

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

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

    Insurer Ordered to Participate in Appraisal

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review

    Lauren Motola-Davis Honored By Providence Business News as a 2021 Leader & Achiever

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer
    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

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    October 25, 2020 —
    In September, the Trump administration announced a national moratorium on evictions, via an order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus. The four-month temporary suspension applies to any tenant who can’t make rent due to economic conditions and who presents a written declaration about their circumstances to their landlord. But the CDC ban now faces legal challenges on multiple fronts, even as landlords continue to routinely file evictions for nonpayment of rent — the very outcome that the order was designed to prevent. On Oct. 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia heard the first case against the moratorium, Richard Lee Brown, et al. v. Secretary Alex Azar, et al.. That challenge, brought by a nonprofit called the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has been joined by the National Apartment Association, which represents some 85,000 landlords responsible for 10 million rental units. Lawyers and scholars working on behalf of plaintiffs in the cases say that the CDC lacks the constitutional authority to enact a policy affecting rents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    May 13, 2014 —
    Following two years in which its big-bank peers paid almost $2 billion to resolve fraud accusations by the Federal Housing Administration, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) has decided it isn’t giving up so easily. Wells Fargo was one of five banks that agreed in 2012 to a nationwide, $25 billion settlement with the Justice Department over mortgage wrongdoing that included botched foreclosures. The FHA then took additional action against four of the banks, including Wells Fargo, for related housing-crisis wrongdoing. Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. decided to settle those matters. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which argued the nationwide settlement should have blocked the new FHA claims against it, chose to fight. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Zajac, Bloomberg
    Mr. Zajac may be contacted at azajac@bloomberg.net

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    September 13, 2021 —
    In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine. In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.) However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    February 18, 2019 —
    In its recent decision in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company, 2019 WL 323702 (Wis. Jan. 25, 2019), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the issue of contribution rights as among co-insurers. Steadfast and Greenwich issued pollution liability policies to different entities that performed sewer-related services for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) at different times. MMSD sought coverage under both policies in connection with underlying claims involving pollution-related loss. Both insurers agreed that MMSD qualified as an additional insured under their respective policies, but Greenwich took the position that its coverage was excess over the coverage afforded under the Steadfast policy, at least for defense purposes, and that as such, it had no defense obligation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    August 10, 2021 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    You Are Your Brother’s Keeper. Direct Contractors in California Now Responsible for Wage Obligations of Subcontractors

    January 31, 2018 —
    If there’s one law from the 2017 Legislative Session that’s garnered a lot of attention in the construction press, it’s AB 1701. Under AB 1701, beginning January 1, 2018, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018, direct contractors may be found liable for unpaid wages, fringe or other benefit payments or contributions, including interest, but excluding penalties or liquidated damages, owed by a subcontractor of any tier to their workers. Here’s what you need to know about AB 1701. What code section did AB 1701 amend? AB 1701 added a a new section 218.7 to the Labor Code. To whom does AB 1701 apply? AB 1701 applies to direct contractors only. A direct contractor is defined as a “contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner.” On what types of projects does AB 1701 apply? AB 1701 applies to private works projects only. When does AB 1701 take effect? AB 1701 took effect on January 1, 2018 and applies to all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018. 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

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

    November 21, 2022 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2023 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Metropolitan Tier 1
      • Insurance Law
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    Orange County
    • Metropolitan Tier 2
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    October 05, 2020 —
    The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020). Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions. Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com