BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

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

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Leftover Equipment and Materials When a Contractor Is Abruptly Terminated

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco and Cleveland Take Home Top Industry Honors

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    ACS Recognized by Construction Executive Magazine in the Top 50 Construction Law Firms of 2021

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Top Lawyers” in New York by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Contractors Struggle with Cash & Difficult Payment Terms, Could Benefit From Legal Advice, According to New Survey

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Hunton Insurance Practice Receives Top (Tier 1) National Ranking by US News & World Report

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States
    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

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    October 21, 2015 —
    Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is proud to be partnering with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law to be held November 12 & 13, 2015 at The Westin Austin at The Domain. With offices in San Antonio and Houston, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and subcontractors. BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA also specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability and delay claim analysis. As the dynamic litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction-related cases continues to rise and become more sophisticated, it is more important than ever for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, in Texas and across the Western United States. Register for the Basic Course... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    July 30, 2015 —
    In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co., 2015 WL 3539755 (S.D. Fla. 2015), Altman was the general contractor for a residential condominium project. The condominium association served Altman with Chapter 558 notices. A Chapter 558 notice is a statutory prerequisite to a property owner’s construction defect lawsuit and provides the contractor with an opportunity to respond and avoid litigation. Altman demanded that its CGL insurer, Crum & Forster, provide a defense to the Chapter 558 notices by hiring counsel to represent Altman’s interests. While not disputing that the claimed defects may be covered under the policy, Crum & Forster denied any duty to defend against the notices on the basis that they did not constitute a “suit.” Altman filed suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    October 31, 2010 —

    ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

    In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered.

    The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States

    Read Full Story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.

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

    Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

    February 10, 2020 —
    The 2020 Colorado legislative session started on Wednesday, January 8th. It seems like there will be plenty of issues this year to which home builders will want to pay close attention. On January 13th, Senators Fenberg, Foote, and Jackson sponsored SB 20-093, known as the “Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act.”
      For certain consumer and employment arbitrations, the act:
    • Prohibits the waiver of standards for and challenges for evident partiality prior to a claim being filed and requires any waiver of such provisions after the claim is filed to be in writing;
    • Provides that the right of a party to challenge an arbitrator based on evident partiality is waived if not raised within a reasonable time of learning of the information leading to the challenge but that such right is not waived if caused by the opposing party;
    • Establishes ethical standards for arbitrators; and
    • Requires specified public disclosures by arbitration services providers but includes protections for certain confidential information.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    November 02, 2020 —
    In this summary of recent developments in environmental and regulatory law, venues are challenged, standing is upheld, statutory exemption is disputed and more. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Change Must Come from Within … Maryland? As the new term begins, the Court has agreed to review BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held that a climate change damages case filed against many energy companies must be heard in the state courts of Maryland and not the federal courts. The petitioners argue that the federal office removal statute authorizes such removal, and the Fourth Circuit’s contrary decision conflicts with rulings from other circuit courts. THE FEDERAL COURTS Where Is the Fund in That? On September 25,2020, in U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the lower court should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. House of Representatives challenging the Executive Branch’s transferal of appropriated funds to the Department of Defense to build a physical barrier along the southern border of the United State. The case is More than $8 billion is at stake, a sum that had been transferred from various federal accounts not involved with building the wall. The appeals court held that the lower court should not have dismissed this lawsuit because the House of Representatives had standing to bring this lawsuit even if the U.S. Senate was not involved with this litigation. Accordingly, the case was returned to the lower court for additional findings, with the appeals court noting that the Constitution’s Appropriation’s Clause serves as an important check on the Executive Branch. 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

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    May 24, 2018 —
    On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that arbitration agreements which mandate individualized resolution of claims (as opposed to class or collective resolution) are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that such "class action waivers" violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which generally protects employees' rights to act "in concert" with one another. The Court addressed a split created by decisions from three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal: Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (7th Circuit), Ernst & Young v. Morris (9th Circuit) and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA (5th Circuit). All three cases involved employees who sought to bring collective or class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and their respective employers who sought to enforce pre-dispute arbitration agreements which waived such collective actions and mandated "one-on-one" arbitration of wage disputes. In support of their position, the employees argued that the class and collective action waivers were illegal because they violated the NLRA's prohibition on barring employees from engaging in "concerted activities." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jason I. Bluver and Jeffrey K. Brown Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Bluver may be contacted at jib@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    November 06, 2013 —
    Writing under the pseudonym “Babbage,” a technology blogger at The Economist takes note of some of the depressing facts about America’s infrastructure. Babbage notes that most of the United States’ transportation infrastructure was “built in a furious burst of road construction during the 1950s and 1960s.” Citing a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, President Obama recently warned that “we’ve got about $2 trillion of deferred maintenance.” Some of this deferred maintenance can cost lives. The 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis killed 13 people and injured 145 others. The cost of fixing structural defects in the nation’s bridges was estimated at $32 billion in 2004. In that year, about 66,500 bridges were deemed structurally defective. Another 84,000 were termed “structurally obsolete,” meaning they could be used, but with restrictions on vehicle weight and speed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    December 11, 2013 —
    A Canton, Ohio construction company, TAB Construction, has been sued by the federal government over claims that the company lied about its location in order to receive contracts from the U.S. government. According to the suit, TAB received about $13 million for contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The firm had gained the contracts through a Small Business Administration program that allowed firms in certain areas to compete for contracts, however, the firm was not located in the appropriate area. When the SBA found that TAB was not doing business out of an address that qualified for the SBA’s HUBZone program, the company claimed to be working from another address that qualified. Upon investigation, the SBA found this also was not true. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of