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


    Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    Pennsylvania Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Angels Among Us

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Billion-Dollar Power Lines Finally Inching Ahead to Help US Grids

    April 03, 2023 —
    The biggest impediment to the US achieving a cleaner power grid isn't climate deniers or fossil-fuel lobbies; it’s a lack of transmission lines. The country badly needs more conduits to cart wind and solar energy and hydropower to cities. For more than a decade, multibillion-dollar power-line projects have struggled to advance, slowed or halted by bureaucracy, NIMBYism or general industry stasis. Now suddenly, several are progressing — and with them the prospect of newly unleashed clean energy as well as more resilient grids in the face of ever-dangerous storms and extreme heatwaves. There’s SunZia in the Southwest, TransWest Express in the Mountain West, Grain Belt Express to the Midwest, and Champlain Hudson Power Express into New York City — projects that together will cost at least $13 billion. Some are now ordering expensive equipment, a signal of their advancement. SunZia and TransWest expect to begin construction this year. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Eckhouse, Bloomberg, Naureen S Malik, Bloomberg and Dave Merrill, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    January 21, 2019 —
    If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. 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

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    April 17, 2019 —
    Given that about three-quarters of construction workers are exposed to noise levels above the recommended limit, 83 percent of the 237 contractors surveyed for a new Dodge Data & Analytics SmartMarket Brief say they’ve purchased quieter equipment, yet well over half of those firms report their company could do better. Additionally, 85 percent of contractors report using hearing protection onsite more than 50 percent of the time, yet less than half say they always use it, suggesting a significant opportunity for improvement in the industry. Digging deeper, the survey determined small companies lag behind large and midsize ones in the use of hearing protection. Also, half of general contractors report always using hearing protection, compared to about one-third of trade contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    October 28, 2011 —

    Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

    Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

    Read the full story...

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

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    October 09, 2018 —
    On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. 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

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    March 04, 2019 —
    When American colonists planned downtown Annapolis, Maryland in 1695, they wanted easy access to the sea. Almost 325 years later, the sea is now closer than ever. It’s so close, in fact, that 16 small businesses lost roughly 2 percent of their revenue in 2017. In a first-of-its-kind study, Stanford University and Naval Academy researchers looked at the effect of sea-level rise on a single city-block. Specifically, they examined sunny-day floods—inundation that occurs when infrastructure built for lower waters is no longer sufficient to keep back the highest tides—at a central parking lot at City Dock. As sea levels rise, these “nuisance floods” are becoming more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the U.S. grew from two per year to nearly 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    April 05, 2017 —
    In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    December 16, 2023 —
    Mandatory forum (venue) selection provisions are generally construed in favor of enforceability. Parties agreed to the forum for disputes so why not enforce them, right? A recent federal district court case out of the Eastern District of Louisiana exemplifies an exception grounded in judicial economy which disfavors the enforceability of mandatory forum selection provisions. Keep in mind that this judicial economy exception is fairly limited but the fact pattern below demonstrates why enforcing the mandatory forum selection provision was disfavored due to judicial economy. In U.S. f/u/b/o Exposed Roof Design, LLC v. Tandem Roofing, 2023 WL 7688584 (E.D.La. 2023), a sub-subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit against the prime contractor and the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond sureties. The sub-subcontractor also sued the subcontractor that hired it. However, the sub-subcontractor’s subcontract with the subcontractor included a mandatory forum selection provision in a different form. The subcontractor moved to sever and transfer the sub-subcontractor’s claims against it to the forum agreed upon in the subcontract. The trial court denied the severance and the transfer. Below are the reasons. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com