BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World
    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

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    June 11, 2014 —
    The Louisiana Record reported that “[a] construction company is suing a subcontractor for alleged defective work on two construction projects” in New Orleans, Louisiana. New Beginnings Enterprises and J. Fernando Arriola are “accused of providing defective labor and materials, failing to properly supervise construction on the properties, failing to obtain inspections required under building codes, failing to construct dwellings in accordance with plans and specifications and failing to perform agreements in a workmanlike manner,” according to the Louisiana Record. Plaintiffs including Bartel Construction LLC seek $209,500 in damages “as additional sums for defective and incomplete work, lost profits, consequential damages and attorney’s fees.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    April 28, 2014 —
    In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    September 02, 2024 —
    That sinking feeling has crossed everyone’s mind at some point: "Did I accidentally throw out...?” It can happen to anyone, from valuable jewelry to uncashed checks or even (in the case of one contractor) to fire-pump control cabinets. Demolishing the wrong equipment is a concern construction and demolition contractors should review before beginning any project. Recently, one general contractor and its demolition subcontractor would have benefitted from a more detailed “trash” talking session, which could have helped them avoid a dumpster-fire of a legal dispute. In this case, the general contractor was contracted to renovate a hangar for a military base. The company subcontracted the demolition work to a local, family-owned contractor to demolish aspects of the hangar’s fire-suppression room. The two companies met many times, from planning to daily field walk-downs. They discussed that any equipment that was tagged with bright orange tags would remain in the fire-suppression room. The contractor also reviewed the demolition plans with the demolition company, detailing what should and should not be removed. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Levy, Anne O'Meara & Kimberly Gutierrez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    May 10, 2021 —
    American cities stand at a precipice. Burdened by an overwhelming public health crisis, drained of resources by economic stagnation and torn apart by racial injustice and unrest, cities are confronting the reality that conventional formulas of municipal finance and practices of working cannot sustain our urban places. The significance of this moment was not lost on the Biden-Harris administration, which quickly advanced an ambitious mandate commensurate with the challenge: a domestic Marshall Plan called Build Back Better. Already, the first prong — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — has helped shore up city budgets, restore desperately needed funding for public transportation and keep businesses open and families in homes. The second leg, the $2 trillion American Jobs Plan, represents a bold shift from short-term recovery to long-term transformation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rip Rapson, Bloomberg

    Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

    February 25, 2014 —
    Issue: Does a municipality owe a duty to pedestrians to keep sidewalks reasonably safe for their intended use even if the condition of the sidewalk is an open and obvious hazard? YES Facts: Plaintiff Nanci Millson liked to walk in Lynden, Washington. While plaintiff regularly walked through her neighborhood and knew that various areas of the sidewalk were cracked and lifted, she continued to walk through her neighborhood nonetheless. Plaintiff felt that the sidewalks closer to her neighborhood were in better condition and when she reached an area a block away from her home, she picked up speed even though she was in an area of sidewalk she previously had not walked before. Plaintiff became distracted, tripped on an elevated sidewalk and fell, suffering various injuries. Plaintiff sued the City of Lynden (“City”) for negligently failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The City argued that the tripping hazard was “open and obvious”, and the trial court granted the City summary judgment. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether an “open and obvious” condition is a matter of law to be decided by the court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
    Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com

    Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

    June 21, 2024 —
    Norfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    April 19, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant SRI Fire Sprinkler, LLC, a family-owned and operated fire sprinkler company which generally provides fire sprinkler installation, inspection, and maintenance services throughout the Northeast and New England. The judgment was determined pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the grounds that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Plaintiff) negligent construction claim accrued on the date when work was completed at the premises, not on the date of the incident as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint. In the underlying subrogation action, the Plaintiff commenced the action in subrogation of its insured, Bet Am Shalom Synagogue (Bet Am), to recover damages in excess of $173,390.86 which it allegedly paid to Bet Am for water damage cleanup and remodeling after certain sprinkler pipes froze and burst in the recently constructed wing of the Westchester synagogue on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged that its subrogor, Bet Am, sustained interior water damage on the first floor and basement levels of the premises, including the carpets, drywall, insulation, bathroom, kitchen and appliances, dining room, hallways, closets, basement storage rooms and supplies, and basement classrooms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    June 26, 2014 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurer had no duty to defend claims arising out of the insureds' installation of defective steel framing in an apartment building. Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. B245961(Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2014) [decision here]. Regional Steel was a subcontractor for providing reinforced steel to the columns, walls, and floors of an apartment building under construction. Regional used 90 degree and 135 degree seismic hooks as approved by the general contractor, JSM Construction, Inc. The City building inspector issued a correction notice, however, requiring the exclusive use of the 135 degree hooks. Levels one through three had defective tie hooks and required repair. JSM refused to pay Regional's invoices and withheld $545,000. JSM had to make repairs that required opening up numerous locations in the concrete walls, welding reinforcements to the steel placed by Regional, and otherwise strengthening the inadequate installation. Regional sued JSM for the withheld payment. JSM cross-claimed, asserting breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. 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