BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction 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


    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Claims Litigated Under Government Claims Act Must “Fairly Reflect” Factual Claims Made in Underlying Government Claim

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    Construction Robots 2023

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    Miorelli Doctrine’s Sovereign Immunity in Public Construction Contracts — Not the Be-All and End-All

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Introducing Nomos LLP!

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City
    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

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    March 26, 2014 —
    Lennar Corp. (LEN), the biggest U.S. homebuilder by market value, reported a fiscal first-quarter profit that beat analysts’ estimates as the company sold more homes at increased prices. Net income climbed to $78.1 million, or 35 cents a share, in the three months through February, from $57.5 million, or 26 cents, a year earlier, the Miami-based company said in a statement today. Analysts expected earnings of 28 cents a share, the average of 17 estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Publicly traded builders have been increasing prices to take advantage of a tight supply of new and existing homes while using their economies of scale to reduce costs and widen profit margins. Lennar’s profit, deliveries and orders grew even as inclement weather threatened home sales in much of the U.S. during the quarter, according to Drew Reading, a Bloomberg Industries analyst. “Lennar followed KB Home (KBH) in reporting order trends indicating a strong start to the spring selling season,” Reading said in a note after the earnings were released. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gittelson may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    June 26, 2014 —
    Georgia tops a shocking list: most likely place to have property damaged by lightning. Georgia residents were reimbursed for $56 million of lightning-related damage in homes last year tied to more than 11,000 claims, according to a top-10 list from the Insurance Information Institute. Texas ranked second at $54.2 million. Once lightning is “in the wiring, it’s electrifying anything connected to that,” John Jensenius, a lightning-safety specialist at the National Weather Service, said today in a phone interview. “Televisions, and even things like microwaves, they all have little chips in them so they all can get fried pretty easily.” Lightning cost insurers $5,869 per claim in the U.S. last year, more than double the average in 2004, as homeowners added electronics such as computers and high-definition televisions. Still, the total expense for the industry declined 8.4 percent nationwide in that span, to $673.5 million in 2013, because better lightning-protection systems and fewer storms decreased the frequency of claims, the industry group said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Gilblom, Bloomberg
    Ms. Gilblom may be contacted at kgilblom@bloomberg.net

    The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

    February 14, 2022 —
    On December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021. Background The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues. 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

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    January 15, 2019 —
    It’s the holidays. A time when family and friends, and even neighbors, gather together. And nothing brings neighbors closer together than class action residential construction defect litigation. In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, Case No. B288935 (November 14, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal addressed whether neighbors can bring class action lawsuits under the Right to Repair Act. For those who are regular readers of the California Construction Law Blog you’re familiar with the Right to Repair Act codified at Civil Code sections 895 et seq. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    October 07, 2016 —
    Keith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote. Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    April 05, 2021 —
    On March 23, 2021, the FBI’s Cyber Division issued a “Flash” warning for several business sectors, including industrial, commercial, manufacturing and construction businesses. The FBI is warning that a strain of ransomware, known as “Mamba,” has been used to weaponize a widely-used encryption software known as DiskCryptor. Mamba works through the open-source DiskCryptor program to encrypt a company’s operating system and demand ransom payment. This new ransomware attack is a threat to any business which employs DiskCryptor, specifically manufacturing and construction companies. What Should I Do? If your company utilizes DiskCryptor, the FBI suggests a number of recommendations to mitigate and ward off any ransomware attack. Most of these suggestions fall within the guidelines of proper cyber hygiene, and include (but are not limited to) the following:
    • Regularly back up data, as well as copies of data;
    • Segment your network;
    • Request administrator credentials to install software;
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com

    Faulty Workmanship Claims Amount to Multiple Occurrences

    August 03, 2022 —
    In a recommended decision, the magistrate found that claims of faulty workmanship against the insured constituted multiple occurrences. Millsap Waterproofing, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90112 (S.D. Tex. May 19, 2022). Maravilla Condominiums in Galveston, Texas was damaged by Hurricane Ike in 2008. While repairing the damage caused by the hurricane, an unrelated fire broke out and damaged 77 units. In 2010, the Maravilla Owners Association, Inc. hired several contractors, including Millsap Waterproofing, Inc. Multiple problems arose with the various contractors' work. In 2016, Maravilla sued the contractors alleging that their shoddy work damaged the condominium complex. More than 80 condominium owners intervened, alleging that Millsap negligently performed work on windows, doorways, walkways, and balconies, resulting in extensive water damage. 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

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    February 24, 2020 —
    ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP