BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    A Trivial Case

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/8/23) – New Handling of Homelessness, Decline in Investments into ESG Funds, and Shrinking of a Homebuyer’s Dollar

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

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

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/30/23) – AI Predicts Home Prices, Construction’s Effect on the Economy, and Could Streamline Communications for Developers

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

    How Palm Beach Balances Mansion Politics Against Climate Change

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    At Least 23 Dead as Tornadoes, Severe Storms Ravage South

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know
    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

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    September 28, 2017 —
    Earlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages. Reprinted courtesy of John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    July 13, 2017 —
    The 2017 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded, and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session, most notably SB 204/HB 377. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement. The following construction-related Bills passed in both the House and Senate and will become law if approved by the Governor. Senate Bill (SB) 204/House Bill (HB) 377: Relating to the Statute of Repose for causes of action based on design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and was approved by the Governor on June 14, 2017. This bill becomes effective on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    December 30, 2013 —
    The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a Wisconsin homeowner has sued the former owners of her home, alleging that they failed to disclose a defect. According to the lawsuit, David and Doris Stephens informed Jennifer Davies that a basement window well had previously leaked, but that the problem had been fixed and not recurred in three years. Ms. Davies had problems with the leaks after she moved in. And while the window was the only defect the Stepehenses reported, Ms. Davies found problems with the home’s heating and air conditioning as well. Though she paid only $112,000 for the home, Ms. Davies is suing for $400,000 for the repairs, loss of property value, and the court fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    May 28, 2024 —
    If you work on state or local public works projects in California you should have at least a basic understanding of the Government Claims Act formerly known as the Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code §§ 900 et seq.). In the event of a dispute with a public entity, the Government Claims Act will usually apply, absent contractual provisions providing otherwise (Govt. Code §§930, 930.2) (e.g., in a construction contract), and requires that a “claim” first be presented to a “public entity” before a claimant files a lawsuit against the public entity. Failure to comply with the Government Claims Act can serve as a bar to maintaining a lawsuit against a public entity. What types of claims does the Government Claims Act apply to? The Government Claims Act broadly applies to most claims against state and local public entities. This is not limited to construction projects and includes all claims for “money or damage” arising from death, personal injury, breach of contract, and damage to real and personal property, wrongful death, or breach of contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    April 10, 2023 —
    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant As companies move to work-from-home situations in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of whether electronic signatures are legally recognized becomes more relevant. For many platforms, an electronic signature merely requires logging in, clicking a button, or typing your name. This process, which replaces the mighty pen and quill, is so effortless that oftentimes an electronic signature may feel like it does not carry the same weight as a handwritten signature. Thus, the question that we should be asking ourselves is whether the law recognizes this type of signature as being valid? Additionally, if electronic signatures are, indeed, valid, are there exceptions on whether they can be used? Difference Between “Electronic” And “Digital” Signatures Before delving into this issue, an understanding of some related terms may be helpful. In basic terms, an electronic signature (or “e-signature”) is any signature created or captured through a computer or other electronic device. Electronic signatures can include touch-sensitive screens where you use your finger or a stylus to sign your name as you would on a paper document. Electronic signatures can also include forms where you merely type in your name and perhaps other identifying information, then check a box stating that you intend to sign the document. They cover the full range of technologies and solutions to create signatures electronically such as:
    • Clicking “I Agree” on a website;
    • Signing with your finger on a mobile device;
    • Typing your name or PIN into an online form; or
    • Using e-signature software
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rebecca S. Glos, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Glos may be contacted at rglos@watttieder.com

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    March 01, 2017 —
    The Texas Supreme Court determined that a damaged fence attached to the insureds' dwelling was covered under the dwelling provisions, not the "other structure" portion of the policy. Nassar v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 Tex. LEXIS 113 (Tex. Jan. 27 ,2017). The insureds' owned six acres of property. Hurricane Ike caused significant damage to the property on September 13, 2008. The insureds submitted a claim to Liberty Mutual under their homeowners' policy. Liberty Mutual paid several claims, but disputes arose over the value of various items of damaged property, including the fencing on the property. The insured's fencing spanned over 4,000 linear feet, including a white picket fence at the northeast corner of the dwelling, an ornamental iron fence in front of the dwelling, numerous cross fences, garden fences, and a larger, perimeter fence. 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

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    June 15, 2017 —
    On June 5, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Con. Ass’n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., No. 15SC508, 2017 CO 69 (Colo. June 5, 2017) decision. In short, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the validity of declarant “consent-to-amend” provisions and expressly held that claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act are arbitrable. By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, (“Declarant”) which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control. When it set up the Association, the Declarant included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    April 06, 2016 —
    An assignment of policy rights made before the policy was issued was ineffective. W. Alliance Bank v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19936 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016). The bank issued a loan to Sorrento Networks, Inc. in 2011. As collateral, Sorrento gave the bank a continuing security interest in all of Sorrento's personal property, including its inventory, commercial tort claims and insurance proceeds. The loan agreement authorized the back to act on Sorrento's behalf in collecting any money owed to Sorrento and prosecuting any claims that Sorrento might have. 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