BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    Boots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction Clients

    New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy

    Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

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

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    The Benefits of Incorporating AI Into the Construction Lifecycle

    How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects

    Deterioration of Bridge Infrastructure Is Increasing Insurance Needs

    Angels Among Us

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

    Buyer Beware: Insurance Agents May Have No Duty to Sell Construction Contractors an Insurance Policy Covering Likely Claims

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors
    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

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    April 09, 2014 —
    Jonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology. In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years. Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    November 18, 2011 —

    OSHA calculates that for each 33,000 active construction workers, one will die on the job each year, making their risk over the course of their careers at one out of every 200 workers. This puts it many times over OSHA’s definition of “significant risk” of 1 death per 1,000 workers over the course of their careers. According to an article in People’s World, “the main risk of death is from falls.”

    At a talk at the American Public Health Association’s meeting, one expert noted that “construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    October 21, 2015 —
    In Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure. Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse. After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials. Reprinted courtesy R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    January 17, 2022 —
    The insurer's effort to dismiss the insured's collapse case by motion for summary judgment failed. Bitters v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228523 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2021). The insured alleged that there was a "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" to his home caused by collapse due to hidden insect damage to the foundation. The insured came home to find the floor of a bedroom dropped down to the cement slab below. He filed a claim with Nationwide, but coverage was denied. Suit was filed and Nationwide moved for summary judgment. The policy provided coverage for a sudden and accidental collapse caused by hidden insect damage. A building or part of a building was not considered in the state of collapse if it was standing, even if it was in danger of falling low or caving in. 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

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

    August 15, 2022 —
    ACS is very honored and pleased to announce nine members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyers’ research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    December 30, 2015 —
    In the above mentioned case, a Texas architectural firm (HKS Architects, Inc.) hired a California design firm (Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc.) as a sub-consultant, according to Garret Murai of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP in a post on his California Construction Law Blog. After Vita filed a complaint in California against HKS, HKS filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the landscape design contract included a “Texas forum selection clause.” The court found in favor of Vita, stating that “section 410.42 precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause requiring Vita to litigate its dispute against HKS in Texas.” Read the full story... In their article, “Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of ‘Contractor’ for Forum Selection Clauses,” Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Abigail E. Lighthart and David A. Harris also analyzed the Vita case: “The Vita ruling expands the protections by Section 410.42 beyond traditional ‘builders’ to design professionals and architects who do not actually ‘build’ a project. What remains to be seen is whether other courts will take the expansion to cover other groups that are in any way involved in a construction project.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are Pollutants

    November 18, 2024 —
    Answering certified questions from the federal district court, the Hawaii Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holding that reckless conduct is an "occurrence' or accident. The court further held that green house gas (GHG) emissions were pollutants under liability policies. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA., et al., 2024 Haw. LEXIS 179 (Haw. Oct. 7, 2024). [Disclosure - our office was co-counsel on an amicus brief in this case filed on behalf of the United Policyholders]. The City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui sued several fossil fuel companies, including Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., for climate change-related harms. The suits alleged that the fossil fuel industry knew beginning in the 1960s that its products would cause catastrophic climate change. Rather than mitigate their emissions, defendants concealed their knowledge of climate change, promoted climate science denial, and increased their production of fossil fuels. Defendants' actions, the complaints alleged, increased carbon emissions, which caused significant damage to the counties. 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

    Kentucky Supreme Court Creates New “Goldilocks Zone” to Limit Opinions of Biomechanical Experts

    July 24, 2023 —
    Lexington, Ky. (June 26, 2023) – In a recent decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court placed stricter limitations on the opinions that biomechanical engineers may offer at trials in Kentucky courts. Specifically, the published opinion issued in Renot v. Securea, Supreme Ins. Co., 2023 Ky. LEXIS 163, recognizes a new space for the testimony of biomechanics experts – “The Goldilocks Zone.” Where is the Goldilocks Zone? The Goldilocks Zone is a perfect place in which the proffered testimony is neither too specific such that it wanders into the realm of medical causation, nor too general such that it fails to help a lay jury. Specifically, a biomechanical engineer’s expert testimony must be limited to the forces generated by the subject collision, the generally anticipated responses of a hypothetical person’s body to those forces, and the range of typical injuries resulting from such forces. Moreover, following Renot, a biomechanical engineer’s proffered opinions no longer may enter into the realm of diagnosing a specific medical condition associated with a traumatic injury. Instead, the question of whether a trauma actually caused or exacerbated a plaintiff’s injuries falls solely within the purview of a medical doctor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aimee E. Muller, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Muller may be contacted at Aimee.Muller@lewisbrisbois.com