BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    Point Taken: The UK Supreme Court Finally Confirms the General Law of Liquidated Damages (LDs)

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    Uneven Code Enforcement Seen in Earthquake-Damaged Buildings in Turkey

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    What Lies Beneath

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    2017 California Construction Law Update

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

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

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    What a Difference a Day Makes: Mississippi’s Discovery Rule

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old
    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

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    November 26, 2014 —
    The federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014). Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash. 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

    California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

    July 20, 2020 —
    On May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

    October 05, 2020 —
    When Hurricane Laura came onshore Aug. 27 as a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 150 mph, it shattered windows on nearly every level of the 22-story Capital One Tower in the Lake Charles, La., business district. The glass damage is perplexing to engineers who study wind dynamics and window performance. Reprinted courtesy of Autumn Cafiero Giusti, 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

    Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

    February 16, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016). Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy. 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

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    September 30, 2011 —

    A new law, set to take effect in 2012, lowers the ceiling on when work must be done by a licensed contractor. Through the end of the year, projects costing $20,000 or more had to be done by an Arkansas licensed contractor. As of January 1, 2012, that new limit will be $2,000.

    This will apply to all single-family residences and according to Lovely County Citizen, covers “construction, alteration, renovation, repair, modification, improvement, removal, demotion, or addition to a pre-existing structure.” Residential building contractors will be required to have workers compensation insurance, as will home improvement contactors if they take jobs worth more than $20,000.

    Morris Dillow, a building inspector in Holiday Island, said, “It will get these scammers out of here who are ripping people off.” He cited the example of a contractor who after getting paid for roof repairs and painting, left the job unfinished.

    Read the full story…

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

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    August 12, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON — The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) commends the Senate for passing S. 4367, the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2024. Both the House and Senate versions of WRDA will help improve America's ports and inland waterways, enhance flood risk management and storm risk reduction programs, and prioritize ecosystem restoration. ASCE now urges Congress to swiftly conference and pass a final WRDA bill in the upcoming months. The Senate version of WRDA includes key provisions that will help ensure the ongoing operation of America's inland waterways systems, which received a 'D+' on the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, including adjustments to the cost share requirements for rehabilitation projects that receive funding the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). These changes will ensure the IWTF remains available for future projects to help reduce the backlog of inland waterways projects. This bill also creates a Levee Owners Advisory Board, which has the potential to improve communication between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other federal agencies, and levee owners and operators. Now that the House and Senate have passed their versions of WRDA, we encourage lawmakers to include several provisions included in the House version in their final conference bill. This includes the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program through 2028, provisions that reduce restrictions on the amount of funds states can receive in National Dam Safety Program State Assistance Grants; improves access to the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program; and requires the incorporation of low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams, and an extension of the National Levee Safety program through 2033. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 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

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    March 16, 2017 —
    In a case that has been widely discussed on this blog, a United States federal district court Judge denied the Philadelphia Carpenters’ Union’s motion to dismiss a federal RICO case filed against it by the Pennsylvania Convention Center. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro issued the ruling on the Union’s motion. Unfortunately, Judge Quinoses Alejandro did not issue an opinion to go along with her order. This is a bit unusual. Federal Judges routinely issue opinions (if only in footnote form) even on motion dealing with procedural issues. like discovery disputes. The lack of an opinion prevents us from knowing the Judge’s rationale for denying the motion. Therefore, the order lack precedental value for subsequent cases. However, I do not believe the order is any less significant. Potential plaintiffs now know that a federal RICO case against a union can survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the attorneys for the Convention Center have provided potential plaintiffs a road map for doing so. As I have stated before, the fact pattern in the Convention case is hardly unique and the tactics the Carpenters used in that case are de ri·gueur. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    May 15, 2023 —
    Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released for public comment its draft 2023-2027 Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”)—a document that will guide the Commission’s enforcement priorities for the next five years. The EEOC’s prior Strategic Plan described how it would pursue its enforcement goals. (See our earlier blog on the Strategic Plan here). The Strategic Enforcement Plan, on the other hand, describes what the EEOC’s enforcement priorities will be. Earlier actions by the EEOC suggested that it might be turning its attention to the construction industry. In the SEP, the EEOC makes its intentions explicit, putting the construction industry—and especially those receiving federal funding—squarely in its sights. History of the SEP The EEOC’s first SEP covered Fiscal Years 2013-2016 (the EEOC’s fiscal years begin on October 1) and identified six broad subject-matter priorities. The EEOC’s second SEP set the course for enforcement priorities for FY2017-2022. The latest proposed SEP, published in the Federal Register for comment for the first time, provides notable additional details that put the employer community on notice of the Commission’s intentions for FY2023-2027.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth and Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted ascroggins@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of