BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    ASCE Statement on The Partial Building Collapse in Surfside, Florida

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Contractual Warranty Agreements May Preclude Future Tort Recovery

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

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

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

    University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    2019 Legislative Session

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners
    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

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    October 02, 2015 —
    In Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective. Background Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form. Reprinted courtesy of Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and William Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    January 05, 2017 —
    The Sixth Circuit found that the surety did not act in bad faith when it settled the general contractor's claims against the State of Michigan over delays on a construction project. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20018 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016). Bailey, the general contractor, entered into a surety agreement under which Great American would issue surety bonds on behalf of Bailey in the construction of a kitchen at a State prison. Bailey, the principal, paid Great American (GAIC), the surety, to provide bonds guaranteeing contract performance to the State, the obligee or owner. GAIC provided a performance bond, guaranteeing performance of the contract work, and a payment bond, guaranteeing payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Under the agreement, Bailey would indemnify GAIC for all payments or other expenses GAIC incurred due on either bond, and would pay upon demand collateral in an amount to be determined by GAIC. In the event of an alleged breach by Bailey, the agreement assigned to GAIC all Bailey's rights under its contract with the State and well as all its claims against any party. Bailey never finalized completion, and GAIC reached agreement with the State for another contractor to complete the project. 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

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    August 26, 2015 —
    “‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015 This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe) Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    April 01, 2014 —
    The Courthouse Square in Marion County, Oregon is due to reopen after four years and nearly $23 million of repair costs to fix structural defects, according to the Statesman Journal. The square includes a courthouse building and bus mall, and is jointly owned by the county and transit district. Two years after the Courthouse Square had been built, cracks were observed “in the building’s walls” and “paving stones on the bus mall shifted and settled.” A construction defect suit was filed in 2006. However, the situation worsened in July of 2010 when “engineers determined that the entire complex was dangerous,” according to the Statesman Journal. “Building safety officials gave Courthouse Square’s occupants 60 days to move out, forcing county and transit district operations into temporary leased space.” Now that the structural repairs have been completed, Dave Clark, project manager with Structural Preservation Systems LLC (the company awarded the repair contract), stated that the building’s structure is now stronger than most buildings. “If there’s an earthquake, come to this building,” Clark said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    August 13, 2019 —
    London’s Heathrow Airport intends to speed up spending on its controversial third runway, even before getting approval for the 14 billion-pound ($18 billion) project, according to the industry regulator. Europe’s busiest airport plans to boost early spending to 2.9 billion pounds, in 2014 prices, so it can stay on schedule for a planned 2026 opening, the Civil Aviation Authority said in a consultation document on its website. The costs will be incurred before the airport wins permission to build the runway, which the operator expects to happen in late 2021, according to the document. The Financial Times reported the plan earlier. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elena Mazneva, Bloomberg

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    August 14, 2018 —
    On July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    October 16, 2018 —
    Economic damages, unlike non-economic damages (such as those in personal injury disputes), need to rest on a reasonable basis. Economic damages are those routinely seen in a construction dispute. These damages cannot be based on conjecture or guesswork and need to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, the economic damages will be deemed too speculative because they are not reasonably quantifiable. I recently discussed a case involving the professional boxer Canelo Alvarez that was sued by a former promoter for unjust enrichment. Although the promoter recovered a jury verdict for unjust enrichment damages against Canelo Alvarez, the verdict was reversed because the methodology utilized by the promoter to demonstrate damages was speculative. This is definitely not what a plaintiff wants to happen after prevailing at the trial level! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    January 05, 2017 —
    On December 8, 2016, the Philadelphia City Council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance governing realty transfer taxes in an effort to increase tax revenue. The current combined realty transfer tax rate in Philadelphia is 4.0% and will increase to 4.1% after December 31, 2016.[1] The amendment significantly impacts how taxes are imposed upon transfers of ownership in so-called “real estate companies” and effectively eliminates deals commonly referred to as 89-11 transactions. The amendment mainly focuses on transfers of real estate companies, rather than direct transfers of real estate, but it also affects certain direct transfers of real estate in exchange for noncash consideration. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Nancy Frantz, Kevin Koscil and James Vandermark Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of