BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Administration Launches 'Buy Clean' Construction Materials Push

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    How Fort Lauderdale Recovered a Phished $1.2M Police HQ Project Payment

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Decaying U.S. Roads Attract Funds From KKR to DoubleLine

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

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

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    Construction Defects Claims Can Be Limited by Contract Says Washington Court

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

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

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    Contractor Entitled to Continued Defense Against Allegations of Faulty Construction

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

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void
    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. Leveraging 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

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    April 13, 2017 —
    OSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years. On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations. What Does This Mean for California Employers? California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months. Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection. Looking to the Future Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    February 06, 2019 —
    The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) recently posted final adopted text for amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The result of over five years of development efforts by the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research and CNRA, the amendments are the most comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines since 1998. In “Natural Resources Agency Finalizes Updates to the CEQA Guidelines,” Pillsbury environmental attorneys Norman F. Carlin, Kevin Ashe and Eric Moorman explore the wide range of issues covered in the amendments, including the new Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) methodology for analyzing transportation impacts; use of regulatory standards as significance thresholds; environmental baselines; and numerous procedural and technical improvements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    March 16, 2020 —
    Flooding from the Pearl River in Mississippi has created a renewed sense of urgency for regional flood prevention efforts, with officials set to decide in six months whether to approve a controversial flood control plan, says an attorney for the region’s flood control district. Autumn Cafiero Giusti, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Project Labor Agreements Will Now Be Required for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    February 14, 2022 —
    On February 4, 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects (EO), which will require the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on large-scale federal construction projects with a total estimated cost of $35 million or more unless a senior official within the agency grants an exception. Agencies also may require the use of PLAs on projects that are less than $35 million. While the EO is effective immediately, it will only apply to solicitations issued on or after the effective date of final regulations issued by the FAR Council. The FAR Council has 120 days to propose regulations implementing the EO. Often there is a significant period of time between the publication of proposed regulations, evaluation of public comments, and publication of final regulations. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    August 26, 2019 —
    In just the past few weeks, three states have used their Clean Water Act 401 authority to delay, for an indefinite period, FERC-authorized pipeline expansion projects. On May 6, 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied, without prejudice, Jordan Cove’s application for a Section 401 water quality certification. Jordan Cove plans to build an LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon, if it can obtain the necessary federal and permits. Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, including effluent limitations and state water quality standards. The States have a “reasonable time”—which shall not exceed one year after the receipt of the 401 application—in which to act, or the state’s authority may be waived by this inaction. The Oregon DEQ concluded that Jordan Cove has not demonstrated that its project, as presently configured, will satisfy state water quality standards. The 401 applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection were similarly rejected without prejudice on May 15, 2019 (New York) and June 5, 2019 (New Jersey). This use of the states’ 401 authority has frustrated plans to build and operate LNG pipelines around the country. 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

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    November 07, 2012 —
    The stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

    December 31, 2024 —
    On December 11, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it finalized a revision to the personal protective equipment (PPE) standard for the construction industry. The final rule adds specific language to the existing standard requiring employers to provide properly fitting PPE for construction industry workers. This change aligns the construction industry with the standards in place for the general industry. According to OSHA, many types of PPE must properly fit workers. Improperly sized PPE can ineffectively protect workers, creating new hazards for them, such as oversized gloves or protective clothing being caught in machinery and discouraging use because of discomfort or poor fit. OSHA stated that the longstanding issue with improperly fitting PPE particularly impacted women, as well as physically smaller or larger workers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan H. Schaefer, Robinson+Cole
    Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    September 24, 2014 —
    According to the Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP blog on Construction Law, even though the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (NRS) Chapter 40 requires a general contractor “to provide pre-litigation notice (followed by an opportunity to repair) to a subcontractor or supplier the general contractor believes to be responsible” for the issue prior to filing suit, the Nevada Supreme Court “determined that NRS Chapter 40 imposes no such requirement upon a subcontractor.” In Barrett v. Eighth Judicial District Court, “the court reasoned that ‘while the statutes’ and, indeed, chapter’s purpose is, in part, to allow defendants an initial opportunity to repair, the Legislature chose to carry out that purpose in the manner provided by the statutes, and [the Supreme Court] will not read into the statutes a notice requirement between a subcontractor and another subcontractor or supplier where none exist.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of