BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    Toddler Crashes through Window, Falls to his Death

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

    Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    Steven L. Heisdorffer Joins Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    Decades of WCC Seminar at the Disneyland Resort

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

    New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict
    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

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    December 15, 2016 —
    Calling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1] In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Burrows may be contacted at burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    June 01, 2020 —
    Having an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think. State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at krubinstein@preti.com Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at nfennessy@Preti.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    October 20, 2016 —
    What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements? Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement. In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s. That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts

    August 31, 2020 —
    Georgia HB 1039 amends O.C.G.A. § 13-12-3 to provide additional protections for consumers who enter into service contracts containing lengthy automatic renewal provisions. Pre-Existing Requirement: For service contracts with an initial term of twelve months or longer and an automatic renewal provision for more than one month, unless the consumer terminates the agreement, sellers must provide written or electronic notification of the automatic renewal provision to the consumer. The notification must be provided to the consumer between 30 and 60 days before the cancellation deadline under such renewal provision. The notice must also “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that unless the consumer cancels, the agreement will automatically renew and disclose how the consumer may obtain details about the automatic renewal provision and cancellation procedure. The process by which a consumer may obtain such information must include the seller’s contact information (e.g., specific phone number or address), reference to the contract, or any other method provided. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    March 02, 2020 —
    On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    December 22, 2019 —
    The insurer successfully moved to dismiss the insured's negligence claim and demand for jury trial, leaving only the insured's breach of insurance contract claim under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). La Mirage Homeowners Association Inc. v. Wright National Flood Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147667 (S.D. Tex. Aug 29, 2019). Hurricane Harvey damaged three of insured homeowner's association condominium's buildings. Wright National Flood Insurance Company was the insurer pursuant to the NFIP when the hurricane damaged the insured's property. The insured alleged that Wright breached the policy by underpaying on the flood loss claims and by not initiating the appraisal the insured demanded. The insured sought recovery for negligence, consequential damage, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and pre-and-post judgment interest. Wright moved to dismiss the extra-contractual claims and to strike the jury demand. The NFIP's regulations allowed homeowners to purchase policies either directly from FEMA or from private insurers that functioned as Write Your Own (WYO) providers and fiscal agents of the United States. The Fifth Circuit had previously held that state law tort claims arising from claims handling by a WYO were preempted under federal law. The court, therefore, was faced with the issue of whether the insured's claims of negligence, attorney's fees, statutory penalties, and interest were policy-handling claims which were preempted by federal law. 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

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    March 16, 2017 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – FEBRUARY 7, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys – Ben Ammerman, Anne Kelley and Rondi Walsh – have been elected to partnership. Their promotions are effective immediately. “The elevation of these three attorneys is a testament to their leadership, hard work, and unwavering commitment to superior service for our clients and the firm,” proclaimed Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner. “This is an exciting time for the firm as we look forward to their continued success and contributions.” Ammerman (based in Newport Beach, CA) focuses his practice in the areas of business, real estate, and tort litigation. In addition to his private practice, Ammerman presently serves as a Commander in the Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He's also an active alumnus, currently named co-chair of the University of Southern California’s 20th Reunion Committee. Kelley (based in Walnut Creek, CA) concentrates primarily in construction litigation and insurance coverage matters. She has over 12 years of experience working closely with builders, developers, contractors and subcontractors throughout Northern California developing legal strategies specific to the needs of each matter and the client’s business and goals. Kelley has litigated a wide variety of complex insurance coverage disputes. Walsh (based in Newport Beach, CA) has incorporated into her practice the representation of policyholders in first and third-party insurance coverage, and business lawsuits involving contracts, property disputes, products liability and construction defect issues. She also has litigated numerous political and election law matters and has worked both professionally and as a volunteer on numerous political campaigns. Walsh is also an active member with the National Charity League. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    October 02, 2013 —
    Engineering.com looks at why the Harmon Tower in Las Vegas will be coming down at some point in the future. Construction stopped, unfinished in 2008. Taking the building down will cost about $400 million, which the building’s owner feels that the developer should pay. Inspectors concluded that the building did not meet the earthquake specifications for Las Vegas. The contractor claimed that the fault was due to the design specifications and that the supports were further weakened during destructive testing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of