BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield 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


    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

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

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Truck Hits Warning Beam That Falls, Kills Motorist at Las Vegas Bridge Project

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

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

    North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Ex-Turner Exec Gets 46 Months for Bloomberg Construction Bribes

    Design, Legal and Accounting all Fight a War on Billable Hours After the Advent of AI

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

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

    Texas Mechanic’s Lien Law Update: New Law Brings a Little Relief for Subcontractors and a Lot of Relief for Design Professionals

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    Mental Health and Wellbeing in Construction: Impacts to Jobsite Safety

    Newport Beach Attorneys John Toohey and Nick Rodriguez Receive Full Defense Verdict

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

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”
    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. Leveraging 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

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    October 21, 2019 —
    A logistics tangle decades in the unraveling, the Brenner Base Tunnel project is having a banner year. Twin tunnel boring machines in May were released on their relentless journey to mine the main tunnels underneath the Alps between Austria and Italy, while a multinational crew of 2,400 workers armed with a toolkit of just about every mining technique is swarming four major worksites, including a particularly challenging area where workers must undercut a river and pass through the fast-flowing aquifer below it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, ENR
    Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    July 04, 2023 —
    In 2018, the Washington Legislature amended its prevailing wages statute adopting S.S.B 5493 and codified as RCW 39.12.015(3). RCW 39.12.015(3) changed how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician set the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, from a county-by-county basis to a “geographic jurisdiction” basis established in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) or if multiple CBAs, the CBA with the higher wage would prevail. This change proved problematic for contractors since it allowed a minority of employees to determine the prevailing wage through side agreements and limited meaningful wage negotiations by industry trade groups. Contrary to the previous rule wherein wages were set by the average or majority wage rate in a certain county (which was normally the collectively bargained wage) and provided some flexibility to the industrial statistician in determining the prevailing wage, now, RCW 39.12.015(3)(a) directs the industrial statistician to “establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage … paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in [CBAs],” removing flexibility, and requiring the inclusion of CBA (which could encompass multiple counties) wage rates as a part of the prevailing wage formula. Reprinted courtesy of Brett Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight and Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    January 08, 2024 —
    When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR

    March 25, 2024 —
    Company: Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP Office Location: Columbus, Ohio Email: tnocar@hahnlaw.com Website: https://www.hahnlaw.com/professionals/j-thomas-nocar/ Law School: The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration and Mediation Affiliated ADR organizations: AAA Construction Panel Geographic area served: Nationwide Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: I am a former builder turned construction attorney. I spent 26 years building before going to law school. I’ve worn every hat in the industry—D/B business owner, owner’s rep, CM at risk, GC, design/builder, subcontractor, and vendor at some point in my prior career. I chose to adapt these experiences to a law career in 2009 with the focus of practicing construction law. Now I commonly represent commercial builders and developers. AAA added me to the Construction Roster in 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    July 23, 2014 —
    In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

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

    January 15, 2019 —
    On December 9, 2018, United States v. Spearin, [1] a landmark construction law case, will be 100 years old. The Spearin “doctrine”[2] provides that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. Some construction lawyers questioned whether the Spearin doctrine was still viable in Washington after the Washington Court of Appeals decided the recent case of King County v. Vinci Constr. Grand Projets.[3] Some concerned contractor industry groups even considered a “statutory fix” in the wake of the Court of Appeals Vinci decision. It is our opinion that the facts in the Vinci case are distinguishable and the Spearin doctrine is alive and thriving in Washington. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/17/22) – Glass Ceilings, Floating Homes and the Inflation Reduction Act

    September 12, 2022 —
    This week’s round-up features the construction industry’s latest happenings: the Inflation Reduction Act, women shattering the glass ceiling, eco-friendly floating homes, and more.
    • The Inflation Reduction Act contains approximately $5 billion for programs to accelerate the construction industry’s shift toward green building materials. (Julie Strupp, Construction Dive)
    • According to a new analysis from consultancy Rider Levett Bucknall, the speed of growth for construction costs has only gotten faster. (Erik Sherman, Globe St.)
    • Record vacancies in the construction industry has created the opportunity for women to step into what’s previously been an all-male business. (Craig Torres & Maria Paula Mijares Torres, Bloomberg)
    • A midlife crisis hits office buildings, with the late-30s/early-40s stable of office product accounting for about a third of the national market today. (Commercial Observer)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    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