BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Project Team Upgrades Va. General Assembly

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

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

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers
    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

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

    January 22, 2024 —

    Every litigator understands that expert witnesses play a key role in litigation, especially when dealing with construction issues. Expert testimony at trial can be a deciding factor in persuading a judge or jury in your client’s favor. It is so important that, as parties get closer to trial, litigators often spend considerable time filing motions to limit or disqualify certain aspects of expert testimony in an effort to gain an advantage at trial. Because experts are a key aspect of the trial process, it is important to understand the various rules governing use of expert testimony, primarily Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    On December 1, 2023, amendments to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect which added the language in underline below and removed the language which is crossed out:

    Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witness

    A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

    (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

    (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

    (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

    (d) the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
    Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

    Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

    May 01, 2014 —
    Numerous factual issues prevented the court from deciding at the summary judgment stage whether the additional insured was covered for a personal injury claim that happened on a construction site. Paynes Cranes v. Am States Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40485 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2014). Intermetal Fabricators, Inc. hired Paynes to provide a crane and driver for the construction of a store. A construction worker was injured while working with the crane. The injured worker sued several defendants, including Paynes. Intermetal had coverage for the project that included additional insureds. The policy provided, “Any person or organization . . . for whom you [Intermetal] are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period . . . and must have been executed prior to the ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’ 'person and advertising injury.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    December 30, 2015 —
    In the long-running case involving the scheme to take over and defraud homeowner associations in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a “total of 43 defendants either pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial in what prosecutors say is the largest public corruption case ever in Nevada.” Despite the conclusion of the trial and the convictions, “U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. denied a June request by the Las Vegas Review-Journal to dissolve two protective orders keeping secret 6 million pages of documents, including 10,000 pages of FBI and other law enforcement reports.” Read the full story... Reported in an editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal attorney Maggie McLetchie stated after Judge Foley’s ruling: “It’s our view the public and the newspaper should be able to evaluate a law enforcement investigation including assessing why the government may have gone more lightly on some people. Given the issues…within the U.S. attorney’s office, it’s in the public’s interest to probe what occurred.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    December 08, 2016 —
    The Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation and a contracting team are in discussions regarding fabrication issues that caused a two-year delay in the completion of a key crossing between Quincy and Weymouth. The full completion of the $244-million Fore River Bridge replacement, originally slated for Jan. 5, 2017, is now projected for February 2019. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr.com@bnpmedia.com

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    April 28, 2016 —
    Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is excited to announce the return of their very popular Sink a Putt for Charity at the 2016 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. This year, participant’s efforts on the green will help benefit the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. As in years past, sink a putt in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. But it doesn’t stop there. Breast cancer touches so many lives, with wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins and daughters all affected by this insidious disease. To further assist in their noble fight, BHA is doubling down. During three Championship Rounds on Thursday morning, afternoon, and evening, BHA will up the ante. For every putt ATTEMPTED (sink or miss), BHA will make a $50 donation to Susan G. Komen, and for every putt MADE, the golfer will also win a $50 gift card. These Championship Rounds will occur during the Thursday morning break, the afternoon break, and during the first hour of the Thursday evening cocktail party. Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., strongly supports the goals and principles of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, and is honored to assist in fulfilling its mission of supporting research, community health, global outreach and public policy initiatives. While at the booth, don’t forget to test out BHA’s industry leading data collection and inspection analysis systems. BHA has recently added video overviews to their data collection process, as well as next-day viewing of inspection data via their secured BHA Client Access Portal. Discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility. Attendees can also enter to win Dodger baseball tickets or one of three new iPad Pros! Other BHA giveaways include USB charging blocks, pocket tape measures, multi-tools, laser pointers, foam stress balls, and Callaway golf balls. For more information on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, please visit their website. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Intel's $20B Ohio 'Mega-Site' is Latest Development in Chip Makers' Rush to Boost US Production

    January 24, 2022 —
    Intel’s recently announced Ohio chip manufacturing complex could begin construction by the end of this year, setting the stage for a long-term, multibillion-dollar development effort many experts have likened to building a small city from scratch. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 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

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    November 07, 2022 —
    Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion) Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty. The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows: First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC