BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect 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


    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

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

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

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Angela Cooner Named "Top Lawyer" by Phoenix Magazine in Inaugural Publication

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case
    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

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    June 03, 2019 —
    Two British masonry experts familiar with centuries-old stone structures voiced concern that the catastrophic fire that collapsed the roof and spire of Notre Dame on April 15 could also have damaged stonework of the iconic Paris cathedral that may affect its stability. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, ENR and Peter Reina, ENR Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!

    April 15, 2024 —
    Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach of BWB&O’s San Diego office started a trial in San Diego set to last at least five weeks. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action of negligence, trespass and nuisance against BWB&O’s client, arguing the owner/property manager did not properly handle alleged overwatering of the front yard, allegedly resulting in a landslide impacting 8 homes on a City slope in Carlsbad. Cross-Complainant City alleged independent negligence to fix the slope it owned and controlled as well as various indemnity-based causes of action against BWB&O’s client. Plaintiffs claimed over $24 million in damages, while Cross-Complainant placed sole blame for the incident on BWB&O’s client around $6 million. Heading into trial, it was made clear that neither Plaintiffs nor Cross-Complainant would accept anything less than 7-figures to settle BWB&O’s client out of the case. In the first week of trial, BWB&O was able to leverage motions in limine, opening statements, and cross-examinations to secure a dismissal of three of the four causes of action alleged by Plaintiff that were associated with pain & suffering. In the second week of trial, BWB&O secured a dismissal of Cross-Complainant’s negligence cause of action paving the way for a settlement with Plaintiffs. Leveraging the threat of a non-suit when Plaintiffs rested, BWB&O secured resolution of Plaintiffs’ complaint for a fraction of what had previously been sought. Finally, BWB&O was able to secure a dismissal of the remaining indemnity-based causes of action in the cross-complaint and fully extract the client from the matter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    February 27, 2019 —
    In a huge win for policyholders, a New York appellate court, in D.K. Property, Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., held that an insured need not provide a detailed factual description or explanation for why consequential damages are recoverable at the pleading stage. Rather, an insured’s complaint must only (i) specify the types of consequential damages claimed; and (ii) allege that those damages reasonably were contemplated by the parties prior to contracting. Here, D.K. Property’s building was damaged as a result of construction on an adjoining building, and it timely filed a claim with National Union under a policy that covers “direct physical loss or damage to” the building. National Union neither paid the claim nor disclaimed coverage. Instead, according to D.K. Property, National Union made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands over a three-year period, which it alleges was a “tactic” to make pursuing the claim so expensive that D.K. Property would abandon the claim. As a result of the delay, D.K. Property alleges the structural damage to its building has worsened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnity Provision Prevails Over "Other Insurance" Clause

    December 06, 2021 —
    The Second Circuit predicted that the New York appellate courts would find the contractual indemnity provision prevailed over the application of an "other insurance" provisions. Cent. Sur. Co. v. Metro. Transit Auth., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29860 (2nd Cir. Oct. 5,2021). Long Island Railroad (LIRR) contracted with general contractor Rukh Enterprises, Inc. to complete a railroad bridge lead paint removal and repainting project on Metropolitan Transit Authority property. Rukh hired subcontractor, East Coast Painting & Maintenance to complete certain lead-related work on the project. An employee of East Coast suffered an injury while working on the project. The employee sued LIRR and Rukh. A settlement in the underlying case was reached, implicating three of four policies - Admiral (primary for LIRR), Arch (CGL for Rukh), and Harleysville (primary for East Coast). Century Surety (excess liability for Rukh) did not contribute to the settlement and disclaimed all coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    December 30, 2019 —
    This is a brief survey of many of the environmental and regulatory laws passed by the Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor in the 86th Regular Session of the Legislature, which ended in May 2019. Altogether, more than 1,300 laws were enacted in this session, including a surprising number of environmentally related bills. Most of these new laws take effect on September 1, 2019. This survey places them in the following broad categories: Air, Water; Waste; Disaster (principally because of the effects of Hurricane Harvey); and Miscellaneous. (Special thanks to Jay Bowlby, a summer intern in our Houston office, who made a significant contribution to this survey.) 1. Air HB 1627—amends Section 386.001(2) of the Health and Safety Code to remove several counties from the list of counties with deteriorating air quality subject to the Texas Emissions Reductions Plan. HB 1346—relates to the diesel emissions reductions incentives and gives the TCEQ flexibility in administering this program. HB 2726—concerns amended air quality permit applications. The law provides that construction of a project may proceed, at the applicant’s own risk, after the TCEQ Executive Director has issued a draft permit including the permit amendment. However, this provision does not apply to a permit amendment affecting a concrete batch plant located within 888 yards of a residence. HB 3725—creates the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Trust Fund, which will be held by the Comptroller and administered by the TCEQ, which also administers the TERP program. SB 698—authorizes the TCEQ to provide expedited processing of certain Texas Clean Air Act permit applications by increasing the agency’s permitting staff. 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

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    May 03, 2017 —
    Getting a notification from OSHA that your company is being investigated for a health or safety violation is an unwanted disruption to your business that could lead to a hefty monetary fine. Worse yet, if your company is found to have committed multiple violations, OSHA may categorize your company as a severe violator, which makes you subject to follow-up inspections. In the last 6 years, OSHA has added 520 companies to the Severe Violator Enforcement Program - sixty percent of which are in the construction industry. New OSHA regulations impacting the construction industry may result in more companies facing investigations and fines, or worse yet, laying off workers and unable to compete for new work. In 2013, OSHA proposed a new mandate to reduce silicosis in workers. The mandate, which was revised multiple times before being made final in March 2016, requires that employers ensure their workers are exposed to no more than 50 micrograms of crystalline silica in an eight hour period (down from the current standard of 250 micrograms). Under the new mandate, employers are also held to heightened reporting requirements, protective measures and medical testing for employees with extended exposure to silica. In the construction industry alone, OSHA believes the new mandate will prevent 1,080 cases of silicosis and more than 560 deaths. Builder and trade groups believe the new mandate will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost the building industry billions of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the Silica Rule will cost homebuilders $1,500 per start. While the two sides mount their arguments and seek support, how to implement the rule and its long term feasibility are still contested questions. Recognizing the challenges employers will have with the heightened requirements of the Silica Rule, OSHA just announced that enforcement is being delayed 90 days to develop additional guidance for implementation of the rule in the construction industry. The new start date for enforcement of the Silica Rule is September 23, 2017.* Many in the industry are hoping the Trump administration repeals the Silica Rule like they have “blacklisting” and the Volks rule. However, until that happens, OSHA expects your company to implement processes to ensure compliance by the new start date. *The Silica Rule was adopted by Cal/OSHA in August 2016 even though Cal/OSHA’s own silica standard had been in place since 2008. Cal/OSHA adopted the federal standard with the June 23, 2017 effective date; however; in an effort to synchronize with OSHA, Cal/OSHA recently announced that the effective date in California will also be September 23, 2017. Nathan Owens is the Las Vegas Managing Partner of Newmeyer & Dillion, and represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. For questions related to the OSHA and the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Nathan.Owens@ndlf.com. Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer is an associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office. Dutch’s practice concentrates on the areas of business litigation, labor and employment law, and construction litigation. For questions related to OSHA or the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Dutch.Schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    April 07, 2011 —

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 (H. R. 1309) has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services—the first step in the legislative process. The bill, if passed, would extend the program to September 30, 2016. It is currently slated to be terminated September 30 of this year. The bill also contains changes to premium rates, mapping protocols, and privatization initiatives.

    H. R. 1309 has garnered the support of several Insurance organizations. Leigh Ann Pusey, president and CEO of the American Insurance Association (AIA), sent a letter of support to the Chair and Ranking member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee. “AIA has advocated for a long term reauthorization of the NFIP to protect consumers and help increase stability for real estate transactions and policyholders,” Pusey said. “AIA believes the five-year extension contained in HR 1309, will provide certainty in the flood program thereby increasing consumer and business confidence in the NFIP.”

    Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) spoke out in support of the bill. “For the NFIP to survive, the prices for flood insurance must reflect the actual costs of flood risk for a property,” Grande said. “HR 1309 will provide that transparency. In addition, the Technical Mapping Advisory Council will give communities a voice in the flood mapping process, fostering a better understanding of what flood maps represent and how they are made.”

    Read H. R. 1309...
    Read the American Insurance Association statement...
    Read the NAMIC Press Release...

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    July 27, 2020 —
    Businesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies. This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of