BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Suit Limitation Provisions in New York

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Calling Hurricanes a Category 6 Risks Creating Deadly Confusion

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Tornado Damages Throughout U.S.

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments
    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

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    July 30, 2014 —
    Balfour Beatty Plc (BBY), the U.K. construction company whose chief quit in May after predicting a profit drop, is in merger talks with rival Carillion Plc (CLLN) to form the country’s biggest builder with a market valuation of about 3 billion pounds ($5 billion). A deal would create a market-leading service and construction business able to serve more clients and cut costs, the builders said in a statement yesterday, adding that they’re trying to develop a strategy and business plan. Balfour and Carillion surged as much as 13 percent and 14 percent respectively in London trading today. Balfour, based in London, has struggled since the global recession, with a lack of building work in the U.K. and the cancellation of projects across Australia, where the company cut hundreds of jobs last year. A merged company would benefit from Carillion’s booming services business as the Wolverhampton, England-based builder expands its maintenance offerings for the rail, oil and telecommunication industries. Mr. Thiel may be contacted at sthiel1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Webb may be contacted at awebb25@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Simon Thiel and Alex Webb, Bloomberg

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Named Insured's Defective Work

    September 02, 2024 —
    The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined there was no duty to defend or to indemnify the additional insured for the named insured's defective work. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., et al. v. Walsh Construction Co., 99 F. 4th 1035 (7th Cir. 2024). The City of Chicago contracted with Walsh Construction Company to manage the construction of a canopy and curtain wall system at O'Hare International Airport. Walsh entered into a contract with Carlo Steel Corporation, which in turn subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to fabricate and install steel columns to support the wall and canopy. LB Steel listed Walsh as an additional insured in its commercial general liability policies. LB Steel's insurers were St. Paul, Travelers, and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company. Several years into the project, the City discovered cracks in the welds of the steel columns and sued Walsh. Walsh, in turn, sued LB Steel under its subcontract. Walsh also asked LB Steel's insurers to defend it in the City's lawsuit, but they refused to do so. Walsh eventually secured a judgment against LB Steel, but LB Steel declared bankruptcy. Walsh then sued LB Steel's insurers to recover the costs of defending against the City's lawsuit and indemnification for any resulting losses. 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

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    January 22, 2013 —
    In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that in calculating interest on the expense of repairing construction defects would start at the time that the defect was repaired. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature introduced a bill that would have made homeowners eligible for interest back to the purchase date of their homes. The Colorado Springs Business Journal notes that the Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association is concerned that the legislature might take up the issue again, in which case, the HBA would oppose it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    March 01, 2021 —
    Construction of the next major project for the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee is set to begin in April following the South Florida Water Management District's award of a $175.8-million lump-sum contract to Phillips and Jordan Inc. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas F. Armistead, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    February 14, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    December 16, 2019 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. 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

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    April 10, 2023 —
    Semiconductor chip producers must pay their construction workforce prevailing wages and will be “strongly encouraged” to use project labor agreements if they want a piece of the $39 billion available in federal funding to support fabrication plant construction, expansion or modernization projects, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo says. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    May 25, 2020 —
    How does a construction company differentiate itself from the competition? If the company owner don’t know the answer to this question, or if the first thought that popped into his or her mind was a generic answer along the lines of customer service, keep reading. While all businesses should strive to deliver better results for their customers, if a construction firm is looking to stand out from the crowd, putting sustainability at the very center of everything it does will be a clear difference maker. Finding ways to divert construction and demolition (C&D) waste materials away from landfills and into recycling streams is a must. Keeping track of and measuring your C&D recycling rates on a per-project basis, and also company-wide, can be the difference between winning and losing a contract. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Batterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Batterson may be contacted at chris.batterson@rubiconglobal.com