BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    Nondelegable Duty of Care Owed to Third Persons

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    Gatluak Ramdiet Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

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

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Los Angeles and Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2022

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    December 11, 2013 —
    The main gains in October construction were in commercial construction. The stock market has reacted to the slow-down by selling off homebuilder stocks, leading to a drop in their price. Deutsche Bank did not expect this to be the long term situation in U.S. homebuilding. The bank expects that the dip in residential construction “should reverse course given the ongoing improvement in permits for new construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    May 07, 2015 —
    Earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, which imposes mandatory water use reductions for the first time in the history of California. The Executive Order, issued as the state enters its fourth year of severe to exceptional drought, directs the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) to impose a 25% reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies which serve 90% of California residents, over the coming year. The State Water Board has already issued proposed regulations based on informal comments received from the public, and in a “Fact Sheet” issued this weekend, has indicated that it is seeking additional informal comments no later than April 22, 2015, with final proposed emergency regulations to be released on April 28, 2015, which will then be considered by the State Water Board at its meetings on May 5 and 6, 2015. 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

    Continuing Breach Doctrine

    May 28, 2024 —
    Have you ever heard of the “continuing breach” doctrine? Probably not. It is not a doctrine commonly discussed. It’s a doctrine used to try to argue around the statute of limitations. In an older Southern District Court of Florida case, Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 188 F.R.Ed. 667, 679 (S.D.Fla. 1999), the court explained: “Under this [continuing breach] doctrine, a cause of action for breach of a contract does not begin to accrue upon the initial breach; rather, on contracts providing serial performance by the parties, accrual of a breach of contract cause of action commences upon the occurrence of the last breach or upon termination of the contract.” Recently, this doctrine came up in an opinion by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In Hernando County, Florida v. Hernando County Fair Association, Inc., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D947b (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), a plaintiff appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of its breach of contract claim based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract by its failure to substantially redevelop property. The trial court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. However, the complaint alleged the defendant’s failure to comply “with numerous other intertwined, ongoing, and continuing contractual duties and obligations.” Hernando County, supra. The Fifth District reversed based on the continuing breach doctrine: “Where the nature of the contract is continuous, statutes of limitations do not typically begin to run until termination of the entire contract.” Id. quoting and citing Allapattah Servs., Inc. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    April 08, 2014 —
    We all understand how idle conversation and gossip can negatively impact relationships and workplace morale. But can they cause a school district to lose their lawyer? It is black-letter law that confidential communications between attorney and client are privileged, inadmissible, and cannot be later used against that client by third parties. However, under many circumstances confidential communications that occurred just outside the traditional attorney-client relationship can result in disqualification of counsel. In an environment when many educators become lawyers and education lawyers go from job to job and from client to client, care must be given to the context in which such communications occur. I. The Ethical Duty of Confidentiality Is Broader Than the Attorney-Client Privilege. Generally, every lawyer has a duty to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the attorney and client. (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal. App .4th 294, 309; Evid. Code § 954.) The attorney-client privilege is statutory and permits the holder of the privilege to prevent disclosure, including testimony by the attorney, as to communications that are subject to the privilege. (Evid. Code §§ 952-955.) The attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality under Business & Professions Code section 6068(e) is broader than the attorney-client privilege. It extends to all information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be kept secret or the disclosure of which would likely be harmful or embarrassing to the client. (See Cal. State Bar Formal Opns. No. 1993-133, 1986-87, 1981-58, and 1976-37; Los Angeles County Bar Association Formal Opns. Nos. 456, 436, and 386. See also In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 940-41.) However, if the status of the person and the purpose of the conversation is unclear to the attorney, highly negative outcomes may result. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Rolen may be contacted at grolen@hbblaw.com

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    June 17, 2015 —
    The Houston Business Journal reported that some home builders are using new computer visualization technology to create 3D representations of home designs. Autodesk Revit not only helps the buyer visualize the home, but it also catches architectural design mistakes and can help homebuilders quantify all of the building materials necessary for a particular model. Mollie Silver, a senior designer with On Point Custom Homes, uses Autodesk Revit. “It changes the game for our clients, because this gives them a really good idea of what their home will look like in real life,” Silver told the Houston Business Journal. “If you give them floor plans, it just doesn’t give them the same idea.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions, Four Attorneys Promoted to Partner and One Attorney Promoted to Counsel

    January 23, 2023 —
    PHILADELPHIA -- White and Williams LLP is very pleased to announce the promotion of the following attorneys: Michael J. Ciamaichelo, Russell P. Lieberman, Tanya A. Salgado and Brett N. Tishler, who have become members of the firm’s partnership. All four attorneys are promoted from counsel to partner. The firm has also promoted Zachery B. Roth from associate to counsel. The partnership concluded in elevating these attorneys that each have made significant contributions to the firm and their respective practices. “All of our new partners and counsel enrich the firm both internally and externally. They have a demonstrated, deep commitment to client service excellence and through their dedication, personal sacrifice and leadership warranted elevation to partnership and counsel at White and Williams,” said firm Managing Partner Andy Susko. “We are proud to welcome these four lawyers to our partnership and look forward to their continued contributions to the firm’s success.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

    February 01, 2023 —
    For contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond. In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself. The Cell-Crete Case General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    December 13, 2022 —
    One of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows: The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of