BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield 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


    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

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

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Happenings in and around the 2015 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

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

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76
    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

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    April 29, 2024 —
    Architect Brian Lane calls it “1,000 ways to no.” That’s the wall of red tape that he and his colleagues at the Santa Monica-based firm Koning Eizenberg hit when they propose affordable housing projects around Los Angeles. Regulations and code enforcement lead to delays, which drive up costs, kill projects, and exacerbate Southern California’s stifling housing shortage. But over the last year, builders say that this bureaucratic morass has eased somewhat, thanks to the mayoral order known as Executive Directive 1. Mayor Karen Bass signed ED 1 shortly after taking office in December 2022, at the site of an infamous project that took more than a decade to be approved. The emergency declaration promised to open a new era, directing city departments involved in planning and decision-making to expedite 100% affordable projects, sidestepping codes and regulations that have long added delays and costs. Approvals that might otherwise have taken a year or more are now mandated to happen within a 60-day window, with building permits to be issued within five days. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    November 01, 2021 —
    For centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed. From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    September 23, 2024 —
    In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors. This case involved roof and structural damage to a warehouse in Baltimore, Maryland that Duke owned. In March 2014, Amazon entered into a development agreement with Duke for the construction of the warehouse. Amazon also agreed to subsequently lease the warehouse from Duke. Although Amazon essentially owned and/or developed the project, the development agreement identified Duke as “Landlord” and Amazon as “Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Carbon Sequestration Can Combat Global Warming, Sometimes in Unexpected Ways

    April 02, 2024 —
    Whether by land, by sea or through human innovation, carbon sequestration is likely coming to (or already happening in) a destination near you. As our planet, overdosed on greenhouse gases, battles climate disasters, a logical solution is to simply stop pumping carbon dioxide into the air. Legislation worldwide is aimed at that target, but reducing output alone may not be enough. There are still billions of tons of extra CO2 already in the atmosphere—this crossroads is where sequestration comes into play. Carbon sequestration is exactly what it sounds like—the storage of CO2. Once carbon is sucked out of the air, or in some cases pulled directly from industrial smokestacks, sequestration can be undertaken in a lot of different ways. Carbon storage happens naturally, when forests and oceans absorb and convert CO2 into organic matter, but carbon dioxide can also be artificially injected into deep underground rock formations (or wells), or in some cases technological approaches repurpose carbon into a resource like concrete, or as a catalyst in a closed-loop industrial system. However it’s accomplished, the point of sequestration is to stabilize carbon and ensure it doesn’t creep back into our atmosphere. Researchers, like those at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, now say that CO2 removal is vital to keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (past that threshold, climate change could reach catastrophic levels). A 2023 University of Oxford study estimated that, currently, about two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are being removed each year, primarily through land management (i.e., planting trees), and suggested that we need to double that amount to avoid dangerous global warming levels. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

    May 29, 2023 —
    The FAR Council has recently published two changes to commercial item contracting that clarify the definition of commercial services and simplify commercial item determinations (“CIDs”) for contracting officers (“COs”). Since the 1990s, the federal government has encouraged the purchase of commercial items to ease the regulatory burden on vendors who have not previously conducted federal business, encourage innovation, and lower prices[1]. These different objectives (cost savings, broadening markets, innovation) often have corollary policies; for example, vendors who are not accustomed to the regulatory burdens of government business are encouraged to enter the market by being exempted from a slew of regulations (found in standard commercial items clause FAR 52.212-4). As a result, the regulations applicable to commercial item contracting are those required by statute and executive orders in addition to generic commercial terms that may be tailored due to potential variation in commercial terms.[2] Commercial Products v. Commercial Services The first change, in effect since November 2021 pursuant to the 2019 National Defense Authorization (“NDAA”), split the old definition of “commercial item” into two separate definitions: “commercial product” and “commercial service.”[3] We are now blessed with the following definitions of commercial products and services, respectively: Commercial product means— (1) A product, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and– (i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or (ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public; Reprinted courtesy of Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at mgonzalez@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    April 10, 2023 —
    In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    September 03, 2014 —
    New York City won’t permit nine of 1,700 planned pre-kindergarten centers to open because of health and safety shortcomings and will delay use of 36 others for incomplete construction, officials in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration said. The announcement in an e-mail from the mayor’s press office came two days before the city was to embark on de Blasio’s signature policy initiative to offer free universal pre-school to the city’s 4-year-olds starting with more than 50,000 this year and expanding to more than 70,000 next year. The nine shuttered schools each raised health and safety concerns after they were examined by building inspectors, fire officials and the Health Department, said Wiley Norvell, a spokesman for the mayor. Of the 236 students enrolled for those locations, officials had found alternatives for 83. The city is working with parents to find other schools for the rest, Norvell said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    September 28, 2017 —
    Referral sources are generally important for all businesses. Due to their importance, certain businesses require employees to execute non-solicitation or even non-compete agreements to protect the integrity of their referral sources. Now, whether referral sources for a particular business constitutes a legitimate business interest (very important words) is a question where the context must be examined. Nonetheless, in a case that is certainly important for businesses, the Florida Supreme Court held that referral sources can serve as a legitimate business interest. While this case dealt with home health care companies, the rationale would be the same no matter the business, provided that referral sources are contextually a legitimate business interest for that business. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com