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


    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    Get Creative to Solve Your Construction Company's Staffing Challenges

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Union Handbilling: When, Where, and Why it is Legal

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    $48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

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

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    ACS Recognized by Construction Executive Magazine in the Top 50 Construction Law Firms of 2021

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    No Coverage for Homeowner Named as Borrower in Policy but Not as Insured

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues
    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

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    August 28, 2023 —
    The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
    Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

    Athletic Trainers Help Workers Get Back to the Jobsite and Stay Healthy After Injury

    August 12, 2024 —
    There are a number of factors on an active jobsite that can lead to workplace injuries. Heavy machinery, fast-moving equipment, material handling, loud noises and more can create safety hazards and make it easy to lose focus or become distracted. Additionally, the movements workers have to do in their roles—such as lifting or pushing objects or crouching low to the ground for extended periods—can add strain to the body if not done correctly. The goal is always to minimize the risk of injury, and yet, incidents still occur. According to 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics data, slips, trips and falls are the most common injuries, accounting for 18% of non-fatal work injuries resulting in days away from work. When workers are injured, it can lead to downtime, lost productivity on the site and workers’ compensation claims. Employers and site leaders can take various approaches to help workers return to the jobsite safely and effectively and keep them healthy once they return. Introducing an onsite clinic and athletic trainers can help prevent injuries, improve worker health, get people back to work effectively and keep them healthy in the long run. Here are three ways athletic trainers help workers get back to the job and improve their overall health. Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Lockhart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

    July 22, 2024 —
    How do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy. Factual Background In 2017 Air Control Systems. Inc. (Air Control) was contracted to perform improvement work at a Los Angeles building and subsequently hired CSI to install duct insulation. In 2019, Jason Standiford, and Air Control employee, filed a negligence lawsuit against CSI, alleging injuries from a 2017 incident where a CSI employee allegedly drove a scissor lift into a ladder Standiford was on, causing him to fall. CSI requested Allied World to defend it in the Standiford lawsuit. Initially, Allied World accepted the defense, but later withdrew, citing the Contractor Exclusion in the policy. CSI filed for declaratory relief, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, finding the term contractor ambiguous and construing it in CSI's favor. Allied World appealed the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Stacy R. Goldscher, Wood Smith Henning & Berman and Tracy M. Lewis, Wood Smith Henning & Berman Ms. Goldscher may be contacted at sgoldscher@wshblaw.com Ms. Lewis may be contacted at tlewis@wshblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    December 19, 2018 —
    Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    October 10, 2022 —
    The cost of the New York City-area Gateway rail tunnel project climbed to $16.1 billion and the expected start of construction was pushed to 2024, its overseer said Wednesday. The plan is to seek more federal aid to cover the rising cost. The new estimate, with finance charges, was 14% higher than last year’s projection to build a passenger rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey, and rehabilitate Amtrak and New Jersey Transit’s only existing link. The start of major construction, once proposed for mid-2023, now is expected in mid-2024, according to a statement from the Gateway Development Commission. The tunnel is anticipated to be in service by 2035. Half the cost was expected to be covered by the federal government, and the rest by New York and New Jersey, with contributions from Amtrak and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The commission now will seek additional US funding under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It expects a full funding grant agreement in early 2024, with construction starting later that year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elise Young, Bloomberg

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    February 24, 2020 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Adam P. Joffe and Heather Fleming have been elected to the partnership effective January 1, 2020. “Heather and Adam are terrific additions to our partnership and team. They are both effective, experienced and driven lawyers who work steadfastly on behalf of clients to meet their needs,” said Michael Knippen, firm chair. Adam joined the firm in 2019 and is based in the firm’s Chicago office, which now includes 10 partners. He counsels and represents insurers in complex first-party and third-party coverage litigation. Adam also advises insurers on their coverage obligations under primary and excess commercial lines policies, including commercial general liability, employment practices liability, professional liability, and commercial property policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    January 02, 2019 —
    The federal district court dismissed some insurers from a class action suit alleging failure to provide coverage for collapse claims. Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018). A class of homeowners brought suit in 2016 against their homeowners insurance companies ("defendants") for failure to cover collapse claims. Plaintiffs alleged they bought their homes between 1984 and 2015. Each of the homes had basement walls that were "crumbling and cracking due to the oxidation of certain minerals contained in the concrete." As a result of the deteriorating concrete, plaintiffs claimed that their basement walls were in a state of collapse. 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

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    September 09, 2024 —
    A contract awarded, protested, terminated, appealed, then reinstated. It’s no secret that federal construction procurements are plagued with uncertainty. From delays, constructive suspensions, compromised supply chains, the litigation-laden critical path method, and the mandate for all construction materials used in federally funded projects for infrastructure to be produced in the United States under the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) (to name just a few traditional and emerging favorites), just one of these issues could fill the rest of anyone’s month with substantive research. To add one more, which is entirely unique to bid protests, federal contractors–including construction contractors–listed in a General Service Administration (GSA) Schedule may have new grounds to have a contract award reinstated that was terminated by a federal agency pending a GAO decision. GAO Protest An initial GAO protest filed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) argued that the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (Agency) wrongfully made an award to Kearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney) when the Agency: (1) improperly evaluated quotes; and (2) failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. At issue was a competed task order with Kearney under a GSA FSS multiple-award contract. Before the GAO issued an opinion, however, it held an unrecorded predictive-outcome conference with Deloitte and Kearney where the only mutual consensus was the likely ineligibility of all offerors for the relevant award. The Agency subsequently elected to take corrective action, terminating Kearney’s contract award for convenience, amending the solicitation to avoid issues (including undisputed issues) addressed in the GAO protest. After the Agency adopted their corrective action, the GAO protest was dismissed as academic and moot. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com