BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    World’s Biggest Crane Lifts Huge Steel Ring at U.K. Nuclear Site

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    You Are Your Brother’s Keeper. Direct Contractors in California Now Responsible for Wage Obligations of Subcontractors

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Associate Cary D. Steklof Selected to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite Up & Comers List for 2019

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    Considering Stormwater Management

    How Philadelphia I-95 Span Destroyed by Fire Reopened in Just 12 Days

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    September 29, 2021 —
    After suffering business losses due to a hurricane, the insured's Civil Authority claim survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Pathology Lab. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145129 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2021). Hurricane Laura devastated Lake Charles, Louisiana causing severe damage to the insured property as well as other properties within a mile of the insured property. All seven electrical transmission line corridors feeding Lake Charles were catastrophically damaged causing an extensive power outage. Government shutdown Orders prohibited the insureds' access to the Lab. The Orders were issued by the respective civil authorities both in anticipation of and as a result of damage and dangerous physical conditions expected from and actually resulting from Hurricane Laura and the continuation thereof. When the hurricane arrived, all businesses that were not essential to the recovery were ordered closed until electricity, water and sewer services were restored. As a result, the Lab was closed from August 27, 2020 toSeptember 8, 2020. The Lab sued for business income under the policy's Civil Authority provisions. Mt. Hawley moved to dismiss. Mt. Hawley argued that the Orders did not by their explicit terms close the Lab's business because closure was entirely dependent on the conditions of the described premises itself and whether it was safe to occupy. Mt. Hawley further argued that the mandatory Evacuation Order was issued in anticipation of property damage and therefore did not trigger coverage under the Civil Authority provision. 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

    New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

    February 07, 2014 —
    A new highway costing $635 million was built in Sochi, Russia to support this month’s Winter Olympic Games—but the “shining” highway has cut off residents of the Village of Akhtyr, according to The Spokesman-Review. The online publication reports that while the Olympics will showcase the “luxury malls, sleek stadiums and high-speed train links, thousands of ordinary people in the Sochi area put up with squalor and environmental waste: villagers living next to an illegal dump filled with Olympic construction waste, families whose homes are sinking into the earth, city dwellers suffering chronic power cuts despite promises to improve electricity.” One of the Sochi residents told KPAX News that what was once a “15-minute walk to get the bus to work has become a two-hour, cross-country trek. Military guards block their way to the rickety footbridge they used to use.” Furthermore, KPAX News claimed, “Heavy construction and traffic have chewed up the road through town and turned it into a dust bowl.” Read the full story at The Spokesman-Review... Read the full story at KPAX News... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    June 21, 2017 —
    California Business & Professions Code section 7031(a) requires a party to have contractor’s license in order to maintain an action for compensation for services performed for which a contractor’s license is needed. In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B269186 (2017 WL 2544856) (Cal. Ct. App. June 13, 2017), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District considered the scope of this statute in denying, in part, Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc.’s (“Phoenix Pipeline”) appeal of a trial court ruling granting Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (“SpaceX”) demurrer to Phoenix Pipeline’s second amended complaint, without leave to amend. Phoenix Pipeline filed the underlying lawsuit for, among other claims, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from an agreement with SpaceX for Phoenix Pipeline to perform various plumbing, concrete removal and electrical services. Phoenix Pipeline alleged SpaceX paid for such services from 2010 to October 2013, but failed to pay Phoenix for services performed from October 2013 to August 2014, totaling just over $1,000,000. According to Phoenix Pipeline, this work was performed pursuant to a series of invoices, which constituted individual agreements between SpaceX and Phoenix Pipeline. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Housing Bill Threatened by Rift on Help for Disadvantaged

    April 09, 2014 —
    Efforts to overhaul the U.S. housing-finance system could hinge on how far Congress is willing to go to ensure that young, low-income and minority homebuyers can get mortgages. A bipartisan bill drafted by Senate Banking Committee leaders Tim Johnson and Mike Crapo relies on incentives to persuade financiers to lend to groups with higher risk profiles. Consumer and civil-rights organizations are pushing instead for a mandate that those groups must be served, a concept that has become a political flash point since the housing bubble burst. Key Democrats on the banking panel whose support is needed to pass the measure may vote against a bill that doesn’t include a mandate, especially as mortgage borrowing has dropped among blacks, Latinos and first-time buyers. Ms. Hopkins may be contacted at chopkins19@bloomberg.net; Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson, Bloomberg

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    June 18, 2019 —
    Walmart Inc. took inspiration from McDonald’s Corp., Apple Inc. and locations like Stanford University when designing the new headquarters that will start taking shape this summer. The 350-acre campus will be located just a few blocks east of Walmart’s current home, a patchwork of more than 20 buildings in Bentonville, Arkansas. It will feature bike paths, food trucks and outdoor meeting areas -- part of an effort to lure younger, digitally-savvy workers to northwestern Arkansas. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Boyle, Bloomberg

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    January 14, 2015 —
    In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. Background The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST. Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    April 03, 2013 —

    Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

    For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry.  Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible.  In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

    After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts.  Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California.  Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
    William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    April 01, 2015 —
    On March 2, 2015, Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, spoke to a packed house at the Wendel Rosen Construction Practice Group’s Infrastructure Forum on the Commission’s plans for nearly $8 billion in transportation improvement funding approved by voters this past year under Measure BB. The Alameda County Transportation Commission The Commission, which was formed in 2010 following the merger of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, serves as the congestion management agency for the County of Alameda and is responsible for planning, funding and delivering transportation programs and projects throughout the county. 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