BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Summary Judgment for Insurer on Construction Defect Claim Reversed

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    A Court-Side Seat: An End-of-Year Environmental Update

    Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

    Federal Courts Keep Chipping Away at the CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves

    Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    Mexico’s Construction Industry Posts First Expansion Since 2012

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

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

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

    Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

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

    May Heat Wave Deaths Prompt New Cooling Rules in Chicago

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/26/24) – Construction Growth in Office and Data Center Sectors, Slight Ease in Consumer Price Index and Increased Premiums for Commercial Buildings

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous
    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

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    October 30, 2018 —
    The Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission has updated the state’s Uniform Construction Code to align with the 2015 International Code —a family of comprehensive and coordinated building codes used in all 50 states that are updated regularly and take into account the latest health and safety technology and building science advancements. 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

    The Privilege Is All Mine: California Appellate Court Finds Law Firm Holds Attorney Work Product Privilege Applicable to Documents Created by Formerly Employed Attorney

    June 29, 2017 —
    In Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court (A148956 – Filed 6/21/2017), the First Appellate District held that (1) the holder of the attorney work product privilege is the employer law firm rather than the former employee attorney who created the privileged documents while a firm employee, and (2) as a result, the firm did not owe a duty to obtain the former attorney’s permission before disclosing the subject documents to third parties. In Tucker Ellis LLP, the attorney, while still employed by Tucker Ellis, exchanged a series of e-mails with a consultant retained by the firm to assist in asbestos litigation for a client. The firm also entered into an agreement with the consultant to summarize scientific studies on the causes of mesothelioma in a published review article. After the attorney departed the firm, Tucker Ellis was served with a subpoena in connection with a matter pending in Kentucky for the production of communications with the consultant regarding the article. In response, Tucker Ellis, in relevant part, produced the work product e-mails authored by the former attorney. The e-mails eventually ended up on the Internet and reached over 50 asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys, resulting in the attorney’s termination from his new firm. After Tucker Ellis ignored the attorney’s “claw-back” letter, he filed suit against the firm for negligence, among other causes of action. The trial court granted the former attorney’s motion for summary adjudication on the issue of duty, reasoning that the firm owed the attorney a legal duty to prevent the disclosure of the work product. Tucker Ellis filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal challenging the trial court’s decision on the duty issue. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Wrongfully Denies Coverage When Household Member Fails to Submit to EUO

    May 06, 2024 —
    The court determined that coverage for a loss by fire could not be denied when the insured's son failed to appear for a examination under oath (EUO). Adekola v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27125 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2024). Plaintiff had a homeowners policy with Allstate. Plaintiff - Michele Adekola - was the named insured under the policy. After the fire, Allstate provided payments for temporary housing. Allstate requested examinations under oath of Plaintiff and her son, Nico. Plaintiff and her son were examined by Zoom. Allstate then sought to examine Plaintiff's other son, Lemmeco, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Allstate then stopped paying for Plaintiff's temporary housing and informed Plaintiff that Lemmeco's failure to participate in an EUO was a material breach of duties under the policy and the breach was prejudicial to Allstate. Allstate further contended that Lemmeco had a duty to submit to an EUO. 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

    Capitol View-Corridor Restrictions Affect Massing of Austin’s Tallest Tower

    October 17, 2023 —
    The stepped-back profile of a 66-story skyscraper in Austin, which will be the state capital’s tallest building when completed this fall, is a consequence of the city's height and massing limits to keep the view corridor to the capitol's dome unblocked. Reprinted courtesy of David M. Brown, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    November 26, 2014 —
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    December 13, 2022 —
    VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The Virginia Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Virginia's Infrastructure today, with 11 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C'. That means Virginia's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention. Virginia is a step ahead of the national average of 'C-' given in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Nine of the 11 categories ranked higher than the national grades, as only rail ('C-' compared to the national 'B' grade) and wastewater (tied with the national grade of 'D+') ranked the same or lower, a testament to the state's prioritization of its built environment. Virginia has implemented ambitious plans to improve each of its infrastructure systems and additional resources from the state level and the bipartisan infrastructure law will help these efforts. Civil engineers graded bridges (B), dams (C+), drinking water (C+), public parks (C), rail (C-), roads (C-), schools (C-), solid waste (B-), stormwater (C-), transit (C-), and wastewater (D+). Virginia's transportation sector has performed better than the national average. Roughly 3% of the state's bridges are in poor condition – less than half the national average of 7.5% -- and the percentage of roads in 'good' condition rose from 48% in 2018 to 51% in 2022. Virginia is also a regional leader in transit services with connection to the Washington, D.C. Metro system and with 41 transit systems across the state, some of which have already surpassed pre-pandemic ridership levels. However, wastewater systems, despite making progress by reducing sewage overflows, face more than $6 billion in needs over 20 years and will need significantly more resources to improve systems and protect water quality for communities and the natural environment. The Report Card was created as a public service to citizens and policymakers to inform them of the infrastructure needs in their state. Civil engineers used their expertise and school report card-style letter grades to condense complicated data into an easy-to-understand analysis of Virginia's infrastructure network. ASCE State and Regional Infrastructure Report Cards are modeled after the national Infrastructure Report Card, which gave America's infrastructure an overall grade of 'C-' in 2021. To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/Virginia/. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    February 10, 2012 —

    A contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.

    The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.

    Read the full story…

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

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    August 11, 2011 —

    The Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.

    During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.

    When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”

    Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”

    The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.

    Read the court’s decision…

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