BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield 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


    The Privilege Is All Mine: California Appellate Court Finds Law Firm Holds Attorney Work Product Privilege Applicable to Documents Created by Formerly Employed Attorney

    Another Municipality Takes Action to Address the Lack of Condominiums Being Built in its Jurisdiction

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Architect Searches for Lost Identity in a City Ravaged by War

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    Top Five General Tips for All Construction Contracts

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    How Technology Reduces the Risk of Façade Defects

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/22/24) – Federal Infrastructure Money, Hotel Development Pipelines, and Lab Space Construction

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

    Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    EEOC Focuses on Eliminating Harassment, Recruitment and Hiring Barriers in the Construction Industry

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November
    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

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    May 01, 2014 —
    Garrett Kelleher, the Irish developer trying to restore Chicago’s status as home to the tallest building in the U.S., has one last chance to keep his dream alive. The planned lakefront skyscraper is nothing more than a hole in the ground six years after the financial crisis derailed Kelleher’s ambitions. To salvage the project, he must line up money to get out of bankruptcy, then obtain financing for the 2,000-foot (610-meter), Santiago Calatrava-designed Chicago Spire condominium tower, which would surpass New York’s 1 World Trade Center by 224 feet. “I never understood how that project was going to work, frankly,” said Alan Lev, chief executive officer of Belgravia Group Ltd., a Chicago-based housing developer uninvolved in the project. “It’s a real eyesore sitting in the ground, so I hope somebody does something with it.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net

    D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

    August 24, 2020 —
    On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    September 10, 2014 —
    Public owners, as well as private owners and tenants of commercial and retail properties, are at risk of lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related state law alleging that their facilities are not accessible by those with disabilities. A common misperception among private owners and tenants is that facilities constructed before the ADA went into effect in 1992 are exempt or “grandfathered” from the ADA’s requirements. Not so. At least generally. If, however, you are a public entity, there is such an exception. Lucky you. Under the ADA, public facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992 need not be “accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities” so long as a public entity’s “service[s], program[s] and activit[ies], when viewed in [their] entirety, [are] readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Known as “program accessibility,” the exception has left many public entities scratching their heads as to what they can and must do. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)

    June 19, 2023 —
    Has an Owner ever asked you to sign his contract before you started work on a new design project? Rhetorical question– this happens all the time, right? Especially in commercial work, developers or owners typically are not happy to simply agree to your Proposal for Services, but instead want you to sign *their* contract. There are some risks with that you should be aware of — one of which is the seemingly arcane and legalistic language that reads something like this:
    “The Developer’s contract with Owner is hereby incorporated by reference.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    October 08, 2013 —
    Lee County, Texas has sued the architect responsible for designing the drainage system at its historic courthouse. The suit seeks $1.7 million in damages to pay for replacing the defective system and repairing the building from damage sustained due to soil saturation. Dale A. Rabe responds that the county commissioners were more concerned with “beautifying the building” than on needed foundation repairs. Further, Mr. Rabe notes that “Lee County contracted directly with a civil engineering firm to design a drainage system.” But according to Mr. Rabe what they used instead was “a cheaper pump-based design to save money.” And even there, “Lee County failed to maintain the drainage system properly. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. 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

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    March 19, 2015 —
    Candice B. Macario of Gordon & Rees LLP analyzed the case Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, and stated that “[i]n his case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.” Macario recommended “as lawsuits are filed close to the ten year statute of repose, one area to explore in a single issue case is if you can eliminate a cause of action based on patent defects. Moreover, in multi-issue cases for several construction defects, parties should always be aware of analyzing whether issues can be identified as patent and perhaps used as a tool in negotiations, settlement discussions or pre-trial motions.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    July 08, 2019 —
    The immediate applications and benefits of Industrial Internet of Things technologies are obvious in industries like manufacturing and computing, but these digital transformation technologies may not be top of mind for construction managers. It’s time for that mindset to change. Worldwide spending on IIoT is expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2022, proving that these technologies hold a significant amount of value to the industries using them. That rings especially true in construction, where IIoT stands to bolster an already significant commitment to safety and communication. Construction managers should keep these technologies firmly on the radar when making investments in 2019. Smart equipment With sensors and radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, even legacy construction equipment can become part of a construction company’s IIoT fleet. The data collected from these machines provides construction managers with a wealth of knowledge around downtime, safety, labor, efficiency and more. Additionally, the next era of smart construction equipment will feature more autonomous vehicles and automatic equipment shutdown, both of which promote worker safety. Autonomous vehicles, which self-correct based on feedback and environmental factors, also free up human engineers to move from maintenance tasks into more complex roles that leverage the feedback data reported by IIoT machinery. Reprinted courtesy of Ginger Butz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Butz may be contacted at info@moreycorp.com