BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

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

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    Maui Wildfire Cleanup Could Cost $1B and Take One Year

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    Biden's Next 100 Days: Major Impacts Expected for the Construction Industry

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Home Prices on the Rise

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Empire State Building Owners Sue Photographer for Topless Photo Shoot
    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

    White and Williams Celebrates Chambers 2024 Rankings

    June 21, 2024 —
    White and Williams practice groups and attorneys have been ranked in this year's Chambers USA 2024 Guide. Among the rankings, the firm has been recognized in the areas of Insurance and Real Estate: Finance in Pennsylvania, and Construction in Maryland. Chambers recognized Tim Davis, Managing Partner of the Firm, and Nancy Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate Finance Group, both of whom were recognized for Real Estate: Finance. Chambers also ranked Steven Coury, Managing Partner of the Stamford, CT Office, for Real Estate, as well as Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Patricia Santelle, Chair Emeritus/Former Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee, for Insurance. David Marion, Senior Counsel and Chambers’ Senior Statespeople (22-years ranked) was recognized for Litigation: General Commercial. Partner David Gilliss, Managing Partner of the Maryland office, was recognized for Construction and Amy Vulpio, Co-Chair of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Practice, was recognized for Bankruptcy/Restructuring. In one review of Tim Davis, a client described, "He's been around a long time; he's seen it all and has an instinctive feel for getting to the right outcome." Davis has been listed for the past four years and was described by Chambers as, “experienced in representing clients, including insurance companies, banks and investments funds, in a wide variety of real estate finance transactions.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    July 15, 2019 —
    The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk. The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1] To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history. The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties). Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    February 26, 2015 —
    The federal district court for the district of New Jersey cracked down on a Texas law firm that filed 250 Hurricane Sandy related cases against insurers without adequate investigation. Lighthouse Point Marina & Yacht Club, LLC v. Int'l Marine Underwriters, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6430 (D. N.J. Jan. 20, 2015). The Texas firm filed more that 250 actions in New Jersey courts against insurers to recover for alleged property damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The original complaints were nearly identical with the same typos. The complaint in this case alleged that the insurer did not pay benefits under the policy for "extreme external and internal damages, as well as other wind-related loss," but did not specify the value or nature of the damage. The insurer answered that it sent an adjuster to the property soon after the storm and found wind damages to two fences, but no damage to any building on the property. The adjuster valued the claim at $1,612.00 and recommended a payment of $612.00, after applying the $1000 deductible. 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

    Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

    August 26, 2015 —
    “‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015 This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe) Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

    November 21, 2022 —
    When it comes to workers compensation law, as a contractor, there are a couple of important considerations. One, you will be deemed a statutory employer. And two, you want your subcontractors (and, of course, yourself) to have workers compensation insurance so that you can enjoy the protection of workers compensation immunity. Workers compensation immunity provides immunity to an employer (i.e., a statutory employer) by workers compensation insurance becoming the exclusive form of liability.  A recent non-construction case, Bar-Harbour Tower Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bellorin, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D2114a (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), illustrates the importance of these considerations. Here, a condominium association per its governing documents (i.e., declaration of condominium) was authorized to contract for valet parking services for its unit owners. An employee of the valet company (hired by the association) got hurt and sued the association. The association argued it should be deemed a statutory employer under workers compensation law and, as such, entitled to workers compensation immunity. The trial court disagreed, and the association appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal held the association was the statutory employer and, thus, workers compensation immunity did apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    May 22, 2023 —
    On May 4, 2023, Montana changed its product liability laws when the Governor signed SB 216, which was effective upon passage and applies to claims that accrue on or after May 4, 2023. Among the changes is the adoption of a sealed container defense and the application of comparative negligence principles in strict liability actions. Montana also adopted a defense based on certain actions not being brought within 10 years. In addition, Montana adopted a rebuttable presumption with respect to a product’s defective condition. A jury must be informed about this rebuttable presumption with respect to certain warnings claims, premarket licensing procedures or claims involving drugs and/or medical devices. The changes to the Montana Code are further described below.
    • In situations where there are multiple defendants, a defendant in a strict liability or breach of warranty action may now assert, as a defense, that the damages of the claimant were caused in full or in part by a person with whom the claimant has settled or released from liability. See MCA § 27-1-703(6)(a) (as revised). Comparative negligence or fault defenses are also available in actions against sellers, even where there are not multiple defendants. See MCA § 27-1-719(4)(e) (discussing a seller’s defenses in situations other than multiple defendant situations) (as revised).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    December 16, 2019 —
    Subcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence. Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Reprinted courtesy of Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    February 22, 2018 —
    Shanne Sleder, a San Diego mortgage banker, recently had to break the bad news to some would-be homebuyers: Borrowing costs jumped about 6 percent since he pre-approved them a couple months ago. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg