BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Impact Your Construction Project?

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

    Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails

    New York Climate Mobilization Act Update: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Funding Solutions

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

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

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Intel's $20B Ohio 'Mega-Site' is Latest Development in Chip Makers' Rush to Boost US Production

    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls
    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

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    October 23, 2018 —
    Many general contractors and property management companies hand over project sites to subcontractors and have little, if anything, to do with the construction work that occurs. However, under RCW 49.17, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), general contractors and some property management companies/owners are still responsible for workplace safety for the employees of their subcontractors and independent contractors. The Washington Supreme Court held in Stute v. PBMC that a general contractor could be held liable for injury to a subcontractor’s employee sustained as a result of a WISHA violation.[1] The Stute decision changed the landscape of workplace safety, imposing an expansive, per se liability on general contractors for workplace injuries. Stated differently, general contractors have a specific, non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with WISHA regulations, which extends to all employees on the project site.[2] Washington courts have held that such “expansive liability is justified because ‘a general contractor’s supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace.’”[3] Thus, the non-delegable duty requires general contractors to ensure care is exercised by anyone, even an independent contractor to whom the performance of the duty is entrusted. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ceslie Blass, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Blass may be contacted at ceslie.blass@acslawyers.com

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    August 24, 2017 —
    In this podcast interview with Pouria Kay, CEO and Co-founder at Grib, we talk about the startup’s new, intuitive 3D design tool. Grib® is a cloud–based software that turns a mobile device into a universal controller. With Grib, both young and professional designers can sketch complex objects without first having to learn cumbersome 3D software. You work intuitively in actual 3D space and interact with your environment using augmented reality. All you need is pen, paper, and your mobile device. You can share models with friends, order a print, or export them if needed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    March 29, 2017 —
    Former President Obama’s so-called “Blacklisting” rule was short-lived. On Monday, President Trump signed a joint resolution eliminating the rule, which had required bidders on federal projects with a value in excess of $500K to report state and federal labor and safety violations within the past three years. The Blacklisting rule, also known as the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order 13673, only went into effect in October 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    December 21, 2016 —
    The federal district court refused to remand the insureds' case after the insurer removed from state court. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15681 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016). The underlying case was filed in state court on Maui. The underlying plaintiffs were condominium owners who brought claims against the insured, Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), and other defendants allegedly involved in the development of the project. Ryan Churchill, one of the named defendants, served as president of MLP and was on the board of the project's Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO). The underlying plaintiffs asserted claims for: breach of fiduciary duty; seeking access to books and records of the AOAO; and for injunctive/declaratory relief against MLP, Mr. Churchill, and all other defendants. 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

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    July 11, 2018 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
    Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    September 23, 2019 —
    On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List

    February 06, 2023 —
    FORT WASHINGTON, Pa., Feb. 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL) (www.TollBrothers.com), the nation's leading builder of luxury homes, has been named the #1 Most Admired Home Builder in the 2023 Fortune magazine survey of the World's Most Admired Companies, the eighth year the company has achieved this honor. To determine the best-regarded companies, Fortune and its partner Korn Ferry conducted the 2023 survey with 645 of the world's highest-revenue companies across 52 industries and 27 countries. Executives, directors, and Wall Street analysts were asked to rate companies in their own industries on nine criteria, ranging from investment value, financial soundness and quality of management, to quality of products, innovation, social responsibility and people management. "We are proud to once again be honored as the #1 Home Builder on the Fortune World's Most Admired Companies list," said Douglas C. Yearley, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Toll Brothers. "All of us at Toll Brothers are focused on upholding our reputation for quality, value, and service built over the past 56 years. I would like to thank every Toll Brothers employee for their commitment to excellence and to serving our customers. We appreciate this tremendous recognition within the home building industry and the larger business community." ABOUT TOLL BROTHERS Toll Brothers, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company, is the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The Company was founded 56 years ago in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL." The Company serves first-time, move-up, empty-nester, active-adult, and second-home buyers, as well as urban and suburban renters. Toll Brothers builds in over 60 markets in 24 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as in the District of Columbia. The Company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development, golf course development, smart home technology, and landscape subsidiaries. The Company also operates its own lumber distribution, house component assembly, and manufacturing operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    February 16, 2016 —
    Earlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show: 1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; 2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and 3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. 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