BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Condominiums and Homeowners Associations Remain Popular Housing Choices for U-S Homeowners

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    Texas Shortens Its Statute of Repose To 6 Years, With Limitations

    A Recession Is Coming, But the Housing Market Won't Trigger It

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

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

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

    How a Maryland County Created the Gold Standard for Building Emissions Reduction

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    US Moves to Come Clean on PFAS in Drinking Water

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law
    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

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    January 17, 2022 —
    A project’s Substantial Completion date is a critical construction milestone for contractors and owners. Depending on the contract, the date of Substantial Completion has project-specific contractual and statutory consequences. Substantial Completion is an “event” – there is no universal definition of the term. It is generally understood to be (1) a point in time (2) when work performed by the contractor is sufficiently complete (3) where it can be used or occupied for the owner’s intended purpose. The date of Substantial Completion is generally established at the time of contract formation (either as a negotiated or a contract set date), and that date may be adjusted over the course of a project to account for excusable delays. As a construction professional, your attorney should review and tailor any written agreement to your project-specific needs and risk tolerances prior to execution. Savvy construction professionals often start with standard form agreements promulgated by the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”), the Design-Build Institute of America (“DBIA”), or the Engineers Joint Contract Document Committee (“EJCDC”) as the basis for their construction contracts. The AIA, DBIA, and EJCDC standard forms each contains contract provisions relating to when and what happens once Substantial Completion has occurred, subject to any agreed-to, project-specific deviations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    November 26, 2014 —
    The court granted summary judgment to the insurer because the insureds submitted only documentation of damage by flood, not proof of loss forms required by the policy. Alexander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143284 (E.D. La. Oct. 8, 2014). Hurricane Isaac caused flood damaged to the insureds' home. A claim was filed for flood damage under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued by Allstate. An independent adjuster estimated that building repairs would be $50,025. Allstate also prepared a contents loss estimate of $22,655 based on a personal property list submitted by the insureds. Proof of loss forms for these amounts were sent to the insureds and returned to Allstate. Consequently, these claims were paid. The insureds submitted a new proof of loss for additional lost contents, and another payment was made. Additional building damages were found. Again, the proof of loss was resubmitted and an additional payment was made by Allstate. 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

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    September 03, 2015 —
    The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is responsible for determining the chemicals that are included on its list of chemicals known to be carcinogenic or to cause reproductive harm, thereby requiring businesses to comply with the rules accorded under California’s Proposition 65, has announced the beginning of a 45-day public comment period on five chemicals:
    • Nickel
    • Pentachlorophenol
    • Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
    • Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
    • Tetrachloroethylene
    • Reprinted courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jeffrey A. Vinnick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Mr. Vinnick may be contacted at jvinnick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

      September 18, 2018 —
      The Fourth Circuit certified the following question to the South Carolina Supreme Court: Does South Carolina law support application of the "at issue" exception to the attorney-client privilege such that a party may waive the privilege by denying liability in its answer? In Re: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17910 (4th Cir. June 28, 2018). Mt. Hawley insured Contravest Construction Company under an excess commercial liability policy from July 21, 2003 to July 21, 2007. During this period, Contravest constructed a development in South Carolina. In 2011, the Owners Association sued Contravest for alleged defective construction. Mt. Hawley denied tenders to defend or indemnify. Contravest ultimately settled the case. 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

      Someone Who Hires an Independent Contractor May Still Be Liable, But Not in This Case

      April 18, 2023 —
      In Allstate Veh. & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Glitz Constr. Corp., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1180, 2023 NY Slip Op 01171, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (Appellate Court), considered whether a contractor could be found liable for its subcontractor’s alleged negligence in causing injury to a homeowner’s property. The homeowner’s insurer, as subrogee of the homeowner, sought to recover damages from the contractor despite an allegation that the subcontractor – an independent contractor – caused the injury to the homeowner’s property. Finding that there was no evidence that any of the exceptions to the non-liability rule related to hiring independent contractors applied, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting judgment in favor of the contractor. In this case, the homeowner hired the contractor (defendant) to convert her garage area into a bedroom and an office. The defendant later hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical rough-in work. At trial, the homeowner’s insurer (plaintiff) presented evidence that the subcontractor, who damaged an existing wire with a drill bit, caused an electrical failure that resulted in a fire. The defendant argued that it could not be held liable for the subcontractor’s alleged negligence because the subcontractor was an independent contractor and, on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
      Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

      Environmental Roundup – April 2019

      May 06, 2019 —
      Besides showers, this April brought a number of notable new environmental decisions issued by the federal courts. Before your mind turns to May and its flowers, here’s a summary: 1. DC Circuit. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of State of New York, et al. v. EPA. In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Congress established the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, composed of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and a portion of Virginia. Recently, several of these states requested EPA to expand this region to include the “upwind states” of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the remaining portions of Virginia. Doing so would assist the “downwind” states in complying with EPA’s 2008 Ozone standard. EPA rejected this request, which was then appealed to the DC Circuit by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Because of its unique properties, ozone created by emissions in the upwind states can be transported to the downwind states, thus allegedly hampering their ability to cope with EPA ozone standards. The court agreed that EPA has the authority to expand the Northeast Transport Ozone Transport Region, but it also has the ability to exercise its reasonable discretion not to do so. In addition, the agency’s decision to rely instead on the remedies available to it in in the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision was reasonable and adequately justified, and the court accordingly upheld the agency’s decision. The court also noted that other remedies may be available to the downwind states, just not this one. 2. DC Circuit. The Court also decided on April 23, 2019 the case of Air Transport Association of America v. Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA held that the payments made by the City of Portland’s airport’s utility city charges for offsite stormwater drainage and Superfund remediation was not an “impermissible diversion” of airport revenues or in violation of the “Anti-Head Tax Act,” which is codified at 49 USC Section 40116(b) and which prohibits collecting a tax on persons travelling in air commerce. Here, the charges are assessed against the airport for the use by the airport of the city’s water and sewage services. The Superfund assessment is based on the fact that the Willamette River which runs through downtown Portland could make the city a Superfund potentially responsible party, and the cty is assessing all rate payers—including the airport—a Superfund assessment. The airport is federally funded and is owned and operated by the Port of Portland, and the Port pays a combined sewer, stormwater /water bill with multiple line items including these contested items. The court notes that federal law, in particular 49 USC Section 47107(k)(2), authorizes airport revenues to be used for the operating costs of the airport receiving federal funding, and the FAA could reasonably determine that these general expenses are authorized airport “operating costs” even though the city services are provided outside the boundaries of the airport. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
      Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

      Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

      October 24, 2023 —
      Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2023 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. In addition, one associate has been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers Rising Stars Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

      Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

      February 16, 2016 —
      Haight is pleased to announce that the following lawyers have been named 2016 California Super Lawyers ®: William G. Baumgaertner Bruce Cleeland Peter A. Dubrawski Angela S. Haskins Michael J. Leahy Michael C. Parme Jennifer K. Saunders Additionally, Gregory M. Smith has been named a 2016 Super Lawyers ® Rising Star. Super Lawyers ® is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP