BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    What Contractors Can Do to Address Rising Material Costs

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

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

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    The ABCs of PFAS: What You Need to Know About Liabilities for the “Forever Chemical”

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract

    Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

    House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

    Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?
    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

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    April 03, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Sun reports that Michael Roberson, the lead Republican in the Nevada Senate, managed to get his construction defect reform bill scheduled for a hearing. Previously, the Senate Democrats had determined that all bills pertaining to construction defect legislation would be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, Roberson managed to convince Kelvin Atkinson, the chair of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, to add his bill to the text a mortgage lending measure under consideration by that committee. Roberson had previously submitted his bill to the Judiciary Committee. Senator Tick Segerblom has not scheduled the bill for a hearing and is reported to be an opponent of the bill. While Roberson characterizes the bill as making things better for homebuilders, Segerblom sees it as making things worse for homeowners. “That’s not going to happen,” Seberblom told the Las Vegas Sun. Although the senate voted to send the bill to the Commerce and Labor committee, it still may not get a hearing. Segerblom said he did not know if the bill would be heard in his committee. “We’ve got 60 or more bills to hear and if there’s nothing new in there to change the world, I don’t know why we would hear it.” Atkinson said he has “no appetite to hear the bill.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just two days before the 15th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Category 4 Hurricane Laura made landfall near Cameron, Louisiana. Although the “unsurvivable” 20-foot storm surge, which had been predicted ahead of the storm, thankfully was significantly less, the impact of Laura on the Southwest Coast of Louisiana and Southeast Coast of Texas and its neighboring parishes and counties, most notably Cameron Parish, was quite severe. Lake Charles, Louisiana suffered widespread flooding and sustained catastrophic wind damage. Although the storm moved quickly, it retained its strength longer than expected such that even areas well inland sustained considerable damage. Preliminary estimates for insured losses from storm surge, flooding, and winds range from $8 to $12 billion for residential and commercial properties. Insurers providing residential or commercial property insurance in Louisiana should keep the following statutory claims handling requirements in mind. Louisiana Statutory Provisions Under Louisiana law, an insurer is expected to comply with certain statutory requirements in investigating and handling claims submitted by its insureds and third-party claimants. The majority of these requirements, and the consequences of their violation, are codified by La. R.S. 22:1892, which governs the payment and adjustment of claims, and La. R.S. 22:1973, which delineates an insurer’s duty of good faith. Together, the statutes impose three requirements on insurers: timely initiation of loss adjustment, timely payment of claims, and a duty of good faith and fairness in the adjustment and payment of said claims. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Michel, Lewis Brisbois and Tabitha Durbin, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    July 31, 2013 —
    On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    September 01, 2011 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.

    Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.

    A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.

    The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”

    The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    September 17, 2014 —
    Aspen Journalism reported that “[f]our laborers who worked on the Burlingame Phase II affordable housing project financed by the city of Aspen are suing three of the project’s contractors, alleging they weren’t paid for some of their work and were never paid overtime when they worked more than 40 hours per week.” Towards Justice, nonprofit legal services group, filed suit in August on behalf of Fernando Villalobos, Sergio Roman, Ramon Gonzalez and Hugo Esqueda, and against construction companies Haselden Construction, LLC of Centennial, Continental Constructors, LLC of Littleton, and JMS Building of Glenwood Springs. Both sides have agreed that “the men were paid for some, but not all, of their work,” but dispute “the value of the work done by the laborers.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

    April 19, 2022 —
    On March 11, 2022, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed reverting the definition of “prevailing wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act to a definition used over 40 years ago. According to the DOL, the proposal is meant to modernize the law and “reflect better the needs of workers in the construction industry and planned federal construction investments.”[1] Brief History Lesson The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted in 1931 and requires the payment of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits on federal construction contracts. The law applies to workers on contracts in excess of $2,000 entered into by federal agencies and the District of Columbia for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works.[2] From the 1930s to the early 1980s, the DOL used the following three-step process to define prevailing wage:
    1. Any wage rate paid to a majority of workers.
    2. If there was no wage rate paid to a majority of workers, then the wage rate paid to the greatest number of workers, provided it was paid to at least 30 percent of workers (i.e., the “30 percent rule”).
    3. If the 30 percent rule was not met, the weighted average rate.
    Reprinted courtesy of David Chidlaw, Sheppard Mullin and Carina Novell, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Chidlaw may be contacted at dchidlaw@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Novell may be contacted at cnovell@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

    September 07, 2020 —
    While courts across the country are largely unavailable to litigants demanding a jury trial, pre-judgment interest rules present an increasing penalty risk to a defendant wanting its day in court and may not always make a plaintiff whole. The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the manner in which people and industries operate across the board. In light of the need to maintain social distancing whenever possible, the use of technology to replace in-person appearances is becoming more commonplace. As more attorneys become comfortable with the remote platform, the willingness to consider a remote trial grows. With in-person jury trials suspended until further notice, it is important for attorneys and parties to consider the attendant consequences of the indefinite delay in waiting for a traditional jury trial. Aside from general inconvenience, continued delays may have a substantial financial impact, particularly with regard to the accumulation of pre-judgment interest. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli and Kimberly M. Collins Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at collinsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    June 22, 2016 —
    Connecticut’s commissioner of consumer protection, Jonathan A. Harris, expects to issue a report this fall on the “potential cause or causes” of failing concrete foundations in northeastern Connecticut. To date, the state Dept. of Consumer Protection has 225 complaints about foundation troubles from owners of single-family houses built between 1983 and 2003. But other building types also are affected, says William F. Neal, a professional engineer who, since 2010, has examined 300 buildings in 19 towns. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com