BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    Top Developments March 2024

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

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

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Traub Lieberman Partner Adam Joffe Named to 2022 Emerging Lawyers List

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    99-Year-Old Transmission Tower Seen as Possible Cause of Devastating Calif. Wildfire

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien
    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

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    December 16, 2019 —
    The construction industry added 14,000 net new jobs in August, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors analysis of data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. On a year-over-year basis, industry employment has expanded by 177,000 jobs, or 2.4%. Nonresidential construction employment increased by 11,600 net jobs in August and is up by 114,200 net jobs over the last 12 months, translating into 2.5% growth. The majority of job gains emerged from nonresidential specialty trade contractors, which added 5,400 jobs last month and nearly 103,000 positions over the past year. Heavy and civil engineering added 4,400 net new jobs, while nonresidential building added 1,800 jobs on a monthly basis. The construction unemployment rate stood at 3.6% in August, up 0.2 percentage points from the same time last year. Unemployment across all industries stood at 3.7% in August, unchanged from the previous month. “While job growth across all industries fell short of projections, today’s employment report was just about perfect,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “Yes, employment growth has been softening for quite some time, with average monthly job growth totaling 150,000 during the last six months after approaching 200,000 during the prior six-month period. And employment growth estimates were also revised lower for both June and July. That said, looking beyond the headline number, August’s labor market performance was more than respectable, even accounting for about 25,000 of the jobs being added for temporary Census work. Reprinted courtesy of ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    April 27, 2020 —
    Seven Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

    February 14, 2022 —
    On December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021. Background The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues. 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

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    October 21, 2019 —
    I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    April 08, 2014 —
    Marty Markowitz was strolling in Vienna when he noticed mannequins in a shop window wearing hats emblazoned with Paris, London and Brooklyn. The store had plenty of London and Paris models. Brooklyn was sold out. “They said they couldn’t restock the Brooklyn hats fast enough,” said Markowitz, 69, who spent 12 years as president of New York City’s most populous borough before retiring in January. Brooklyn’s cachet as a global brand and epitome of urban hipsterdom is shifting New York City’s center of gravity, reducing the supremacy of Manhattan across the East River and exerting more influence on New York’s political, economic and cultural life. It’s creating jobs and adding residents at a faster pace than any other borough, sparking a boom in commercial development to supply the new masses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    December 04, 2013 —
    Last year, Judge J. Michael Baxley approved a class action lawsuit over stucco problems in Sun City Hilton Head. The lawyers from S.C. State Plastering have already settled with about 140 defendants in that community, and they are trying to prevent the plaintiff’s lawyers from communicating with other residents. In June, a judge dismissed S.C. State Plastering’s request to block this communication, but the company has appealed. The South Carolina Supreme Court has heard the case regarding the notices and has yet to rule. The Chief Justice has recused herself, stating that she has a connection to the case, although she has not elaborated. Many homeowners have waited to repair their homes, hoping to receive compensation. Pulte Homes, the builder of the project, has also repaired some homes. It is not clear if those homeowners are eligible for the class action lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Angels Among Us

    June 21, 2024 —
    In the early morning hours of March 26, 2024, an outbound cargo ship in the Port of Baltimore unexpectedly lost power as it churned toward the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Authorities had just minutes to stop vehicular traffic before the massive vessel—985 feet long and 157 feet wide, nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower if stood on end—crashed headlong into one of the bridge’s support piers. Quick-acting dispatchers were able to stop the flow of traffic in time, but overnight work crews filling potholes on the bridge didn’t have enough warning. Six workers lost their lives when the bridge collapsed. On top of bringing immense grief, construction fatalities can be financially devastating to the surviving families. Enter Construction Angels, a nonprofit that provides financial assistance, grief counseling and scholarships to families of fallen construction workers. When founder Kristi Ronyak first heard news of the Key Bridge collapse, she immediately jumped into action. “We started getting calls just hours after the crash,” Ronyak says. “When I first heard the news, my heart sank, and I just started crying. Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    April 27, 2011 —

    In Markel American Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), insured homebuilder Lennar filed suit against its insurer Markel seeking recovery of costs incurred by Lennar to repair water damage to homes resulting from defective EIFS siding. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Lennar and against Markel. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed. Applying Texas law, the court first held that Lennar failed to satisfy its burden of allocating damages between covered and uncovered. In a prior decision, the court had held that, while the costs incurred by Lennar for the repair of the resulting water damage

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of