BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

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

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Select the Best Contract Model to Mitigate Risk and Achieve Energy Project Success

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    Amazon HQ2 Puts Concrete on an Embodied Carbon Diet

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

    Here's Proof Homebuilders are Betting on a Pickup in the Housing Market
    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

    Appetite for Deconstruction

    July 02, 2024 —
    The death of 206 College Avenue was slow and painstaking. Over several days in January 2022, dozens of bundled-up volunteers swarmed over the three-story property, a tired wooden boarding house built in the early 1900s in Ithaca, New York. Long used as rental apartments for Cornell University students, the 13-bedroom house was set to be demolished, along with several neighboring structures of the same vintage, to make room for a new multi-use complex. But while those buildings were quickly reduced to rubble by trackhoes, the house at 206 was deconstructed, piece by piece, so that its elements could be used again. The Catherine Commons Deconstruction Project, an effort by Cornell’s Circular Construction Lab, was a large-scale pilot designed to show how building waste can be kept out of landfills. As volunteers pulled nails out of fir, oak, and walnut boards and hauled lumber off to be sorted and redistributed, a team of eight workers with heavy machinery began meticulously sawing, slicing and removing 8-by-18-foot panels of the old building. These were trucked off to a warehouse, where they’d be taken apart and recycled. The labor that went into this process was substantially more than a typical demolition. But it avoided the societal penalties left behind at nearly every building and demo site across the US. The sheer volume of waste generated by knocking down, adding to or renovating buildings in the US is stunning: 600 million tons of construction demolition waste annually, according to the most recent EPA estimate from 2018. Roughly 75% gets ground up into aggregate and fill, and only a small share is recycled and reused, necessitating production of new material for the next project. For scale, municipal solid waste only accounts for 300 million tons every year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    March 05, 2015 —
    As the ‘burbs become more urbanized, the definition of city is changing. Builder Magazine reported that while builders have responded to buyers who wanted an urban lifestyle, “what nearly all of them have learned in the process is that ‘city’ doesn’t mean what it used to. Neither does ‘suburb.’ In fact, nearly every builder that added a post-recession ‘urban’ division has found that home buyers in search of an urban lifestyle aren’t married to living downtown. For many, it seems it’s not ‘the city’ they want at all—it’s the lifestyle.” Leigh Gallagher, assistant managing editor of Fortune and author of The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream is Moving, told Builder, “People don’t necessarily want to live in Manhattan. They want a little bit of Manhattan sprinkled right near them.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    February 03, 2020 —
    In California there are few tools which work to protect the employer, and California employers may have just lost another one. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law AB 51, which bans the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts. More specifically, AB 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code, making it unlawful to require a prospective employee, or current employee, to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or the California Labor Code, starting January 1, 2020. Additionally, an employer is also prohibited from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant or employee who may choose not to sign a voluntary arbitration agreement. Previously, an employer was able to require employees and prospective employees to agree to arbitration to resolve almost any and all disputes between the employee and the employer as a term of their employment. These terms were often the bulk of employers’ written contracts. Employers could have employees waive the right to a jury trial, the right to court costs, and other expenses, provided that the employer paid for the expenses of the alternative dispute resolution. The injured employees right to recover attorney’s fees was always a non-waivable right under the Labor Code. There were only a few actions which could not be arbitrated, the most prominent exception being the right to seek recovery under the Private Attorney’s General Action (PAGA). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tim Scully, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Scully may be contacted at tscully@porterlaw.com

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    August 13, 2014 —
    Delaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are: “(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.” Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    1 De Haro: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Laminated Timber Design and Construction in San Francisco

    November 06, 2023 —
    At the intersection of San Francisco’s SOMA, Potrero Hill and Showplace Square districts, a first-of-its-kind building offers an example of the potential widespread success of mass timber construction in the United States. 1 De Haro, a 134,000-square-foot, 4-story office and light industrial project built by Bay Area developer SKS Partners is not only the first cross-laminated timber (CLT) building in the San Francisco, it is also the first multistory mass timber building of its type to be fully executed in California and the first CLT project in the United States to be delivered via railways. We recently sat down with Yvonne Fisher and Lee Ishida of SKS to discuss the unique design process, marketing success and overall industry buzz surrounding one of their latest projects. Reprinted courtesy of Cait Horner, Pillsbury, Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury and Allan C. Van Vliet, Pillsbury Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    April 09, 2014 —
    In Ashville, North Carolina, property owners have sued CTS Corp for alleged toxic chemicals in the soil and groundwater discovered decades after the company closed its manufacturing plant, according to the Citizen-Times. The contamination wasn’t discovered by the owners until 1999: “That lapse in time will be a primary point of consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court later this month when it hears arguments in a lawsuit brought by 25 Buncombe County property owners against the company.” Citizen-Times declared that the “issue is a North Carolina law establishing a 10-year ‘statute of repose’ that sets a deadline for filing claims related to environmental pollution in cases involving real property, even if the victims weren't aware of the contamination until long after.” However, the law might be “pre-empted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act passed by Congress in 1980.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Corporate Formalities: A Necessary Part of Business

    February 18, 2020 —
    Many benefits exist in choosing to create a corporation or limited liability company (“LLC”) as your business entity. However, what attracts most people to these entities is the protection they afford the business owner(s) against personal liability for the business’ obligations, debts, and other liabilities. Whatever reason prompts your decision to form a corporation or LLC, if you are like many smaller businesses, once the formation process is over its back to business as usual. However, in order to keep the protection against personal liability associated with a corporation or LLC, the business must engage in, what are known as corporate formalities. Corporate formalities are formal actions that must be taken by a corporation or LLC in order to maintain the benefits associated with that business entity. These corporate formalities may be required under California law, by the bylaws, and/or by the operating agreement of your business. When your business is formed as a corporation, many of the corporate formalities exist as part of California’s Corporations Code (“CCC”). These formalities include: (1) holding annual meetings (CCC § 600); (2) regularly electing directors (CCC § 301); (3) keeping meeting minutes (CCC § 1500); and (4) maintaining accurate corporate records (CCC § 1500). While these are only a few of the corporate formalities existing for corporations in the State of California, these formalities are often overlooked or put off by smaller businesses because they are either unknown to the business or are intended to be complied with later, as the actual running of the business takes priority. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
    Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    November 10, 2016 —
    In a recent policyholder-friendly decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found coverage under an exception to the faulty workmanship exclusion in an all-risk policy. The decision provided the insureds with millions to cover the cost of replacing the faulty work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
    Ms. Schurra may be reached at cls@sdvlaw.com