BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering 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


    New York Philharmonic Will Open Geffen Hall Two Years Ahead of Schedule

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

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    Damage Caused Not by Superstorm Sandy, But by Faulty Workmanship, Not Covered

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry

    Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    The Quiet War Between California’s Charter Cities and the State’s Prevailing Wage Law

    Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    Construction Termination Issues Part 6: This is the End (Tips for The Design Professional)

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    Harmon Tower Case Settled Prior to Start of Trial

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense
    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. Drawing 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

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    September 17, 2014 —
    A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
    Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    April 09, 2014 —
    Hiram Siaba, formerly Miami Lake, Florida’s public works director, has been fined for allegedly violating “an ethics ordinance that prevents public employees from doing business with former employers for a two-year period,” according to the Miami Herald. A few months prior to taking the job with the city, Siaba had worked part-time for Ballarena Construction. Siaba awarded Ballarena Construction “more than 10 projects that fell below the $25,000 threshold for awarding contracts without going to the Town Council for approval.” Ballarena had also been awarded a million-dollar youth center project, which “came to a halt last year” when town officials alleged that structural defects were discovered during an inspection. Miami Lakes is currently negotiating with Ballarena’s surety company to attempt to finish the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    February 15, 2021 —
    A Superior Court in California overruled the insurer's demurrer to the policy holder's complaint seeking business interruption coverage after government shutdown orders were issued because of the coronavirus pandemic. Goodwill Industries of Orange County, California v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., Cal. Superior Ct., Civil No. 30-2020-01169032-CU-IC-CXC (Minute Order Jan. 28,, 2021). The minute order is here [Goodwill Decision]. The insurer demurred on the ground that the insured had not alleged sufficient facts to show "direct physical loss" under the business income, extra expenses and civil authority provisions in the policy because coronavirus and COVID-19 did not physically alter the structure. 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

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    February 23, 2016 —
    The California Supreme Court has shifted gears on so-called “reverse CEQA” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated decision, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless: 1. The proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or 2. A reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects. 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

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

    March 02, 2020 —
    California can be an especially expensive place to live. While this is the common wisdom, residents of the state are also painfully aware that location is an equally important factor. Yet, to curb unscrupulous actions in certain areas and expansive rental increases, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB-1482, which is a state-wide limitation on yearly rental increases, prompting potential additions to leases, and additional notices that landlords are required to give to tenants. Failure to do so may cost landlords unnecessary costs and unforeseen complications around the termination of a tenancy. How Does the Rental Cap Work? The law sets forth three ways that rental increases may be limited: (1) a cap of 5% plus the percent change in the cost of living; (2) a cap of 10%; or (3) where local rent or price control that restricts annual increases in the rental rate to an amount less than the state law. The cap that applies is the one that is the most restrictive on the landlord. For example, if the cost of living has gone up by 6%, and there is a local law that restricts rental increases by 15%, then the state law would cap the landlord to a rental increase of 10%. Notably, this doesn't count any discounts or incentives that are applied to the rent, if they are (a) listed separately and (b) clearly stated within the residential lease agreement. Thus, even if the effective increase would be beyond the applicable cap, the landlord is not obligated to cap rent using the discounted rental fees. Finally, this does not prohibit the landlord from freely setting a rent for new tenants. The cap only applies to existing tenants. Exempt Properties from the Law Certain properties are also exempt from the rental cap law, allowing landlords to increase rents without limitation for the residential properties below:
    • Housing restricted by deed for purposes of affordable housing.
    • New housing with a certificate of occupancy that has been granted within the previous 15 years.
    • Condominiums or townhouses provided that the owner is not (a) a real estate investment trust; (b) a corporation, or (c) a limited liability trust.
    • A duplex in which one of the units is owner-occupied as the owner's primary residence.
    'Just Cause' for Terminations Is a Necessity Notably, AB-1482 is not limited to rent restrictions. AB-1482 also restricts the ability of a landlord to evict tenants after the tenant has been occupying the property for over 12 months without just cause. Just cause includes items typical to an ordinary eviction action, such as a failure to pay rent or a default of a material term of the lease, or nuisance actions. Importantly, the legislature provided "no-fault just cause" such as the intent to occupy the real property by the owner or one of their family members, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, compliance with a government agency or an intent to substantially remodel the property. In the event that the just cause is "no-fault," then the owner must either (a) assist the tenant in relocating by providing a direct payment of a full month's rent to the tenant within 15 calendar days of the notice; or (b) waive the payment of the last month's rent. Effectively, this puts a cost on the landlord to terminate a tenancy. Importantly, an owner's failure to do either of those actions will render the termination of tenancy void, and cannot be contractually waived. This does not apply to any of the housing types exempt under the rental cap provision, or (a) transient and tourist hotel occupancy; (b) housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or in an adult residential facility; (c) housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner; (d) single-family owner-occupied residences where the owner leases no more than two units or bedrooms; or (e) student housing for kindergartens or grades 1 to 12. Notwithstanding, landlords must also provide additional language within their lease giving notice of the rental cap law and the tenant's rights regarding termination. This language is stated within the law, and must be given in 12 point font. What Landlords Must Do Right Now Ultimately, landlords will have to show more care towards termination processes and rental increases moving forward. At a bare minimum, landlords will have to revise their form leases for new tenants and prepare addendums for any tenancies continuing in 2020. While the bare minimum is the new, state-mandated language to inform tenants of their rights, other language may be required if the landlord wishes to reserve a right to terminate in order to take occupancy for themselves. Furthermore, for any leases going forward, any landlord that wants to provide a temporary discount or incentive to rent their units will have to include language outlining and specifically stating the presence of the discount or incentive, or chance that a tenant may contest the increase in rent as a violation of the rental cap portion of the law. Similarly, the changes above will have to be implemented as an addendum to any leases being renewed. A failure to do any of these actions risks that a tenant may contest either the termination for being improper or an increase in rent, as an excessive rent hike. Kyle Janecek is an associate on the firm's Transactional team, and has experience with drafting leases for landlords and tenants, real estate purchase and sale agreements, and loans secured by real estate. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

    January 08, 2019 —
    The Second Circuit recently confirmed in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co. that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation, which ripened into a “Claim” prior to the policy’s inception date. The opinion left intact the lower court’s finding that the SEC subpoena constituted a “demand for non-monetary relief” and thus qualified as a “Claim” under the directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger and Joshua S. Paster Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

    July 08, 2019 —
    Trump Tower, once the crown jewel in Donald Trump’s property empire, now ranks as one of the least desirable luxury properties in Manhattan. The 36-year-old building has been turned into a fortress since Trump won the presidency, ringed with concrete barriers and the two main entrances partially blocked off. It hasn’t been substantially updated in years. And Trump’s name has been a huge turnoff in liberal New York City. For anyone who owns a unit in the tower, the past two years have been brutal. Most condo sales have led to a loss after adjusting for inflation, property records show. Several sold at more than a 20% loss. By contrast, across Manhattan, just 0.23% of homes over the past two years sold at a loss, according to real-estate data provider PropertyShark, although the firm doesn’t adjust for inflation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shahien Nasiripour, Bloomberg

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    October 27, 2016 —
    Sorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title. The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule. The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment. In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees. 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