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


    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Have Nearly Finished Technical Work

    PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    One Nation, Under Renovation

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    From Singapore to Rio Green Buildings Keep Tropical Tenants Cool

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Start-up to Streamline Large-Scale Energy Renovation

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    How to Protect a Construction-Related Invention

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Being Chosen to Receive The 2024 ADL’s Marcus Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations

    Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors
    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

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

    August 14, 2023 —
    On July 21, 2023, President Biden designated July 23-29, 2023, as “Made in America Week.” This proclamation builds on the Biden Administration’s efforts to bolster domestic manufacturing through evolving policies attached to government funds that require contractors and suppliers to feature varying amounts of U.S.-made content in their products and services. To commemorate this week, here is a refresher on “Made in America” and what it means for government contractors and suppliers. What does “Made in America” mean? Under Executive Order 14005, the Administration defined “Made in America” laws as “all statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders relating to Federal financial assistance awards or Federal procurement, including those that refer to “Buy America” or “Buy American,” that require, or provide a preference for, the purchase or acquisition of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, and manufactured goods offered in the United States.” Generally speaking, “Made in America” or “Buy American” requirements refer to:
    1. The Buy American Act (BAA) of 1933, establishing domestic sourcing preferences for unmanufactured and manufactured articles, materials, and supplies procured by the federal government for public use, including those used on federal construction contracts;
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Barney, Seyfarth and Amy Hoang, Seyfarth Ms. Barney may be contacted at sbarney@seyfarth.com Ms. Hoang may be contacted at ahoang@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    December 08, 2016 —
    Bound by Pennsylvania law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for defects in the installation of a roof. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kim's Asia Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016). Kim's Asia Construction contracted to remove and dispose of Powerline Imports, Inc.'s roof, and then install a new roof. After completion of the project, Powerline sued, alleging that Kim's Asia's negligent construction of the roof caused the roof to leak, even in minor rain storms. Kim's Asia made additional repairs, but the leaks continued. Powerline had to hire a new contractor to remove and dispose of the roof and install another roof. Powerline then sued Kim's Asia. 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

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    September 09, 2011 —

    So few new single-family homes have sold in 2011 that expectations are that this will be the worst year for new homes sales since the Commerce Department started tracking this in 1963. The Harford Courant notes that previously builders created a new supply to which was added homes under foreclosure.

    Ed Leamer, economist and director of UCLA’s Anderson Forecast, says that recovery would be driven by two sectors, manufacturing and construction. “It doesn’t look like there is going to be a big recovery in manufacturing,” he says. “It is going to have to come in housing.”

    The soft housing market, however, is leading to a loss of construction jobs, as reported by the Associated General Contractors of America. As a result, stock prices for the twelve largest publicly-traded home builders have declined 22.7 percent in a market that has declined 4.2 percent overall.

    Read the full story…

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

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    July 09, 2014 —
    Foreigners purchased $92.2 billion of U.S. homes in the 12 months through March, led by buyers from China, according to the National Association of Realtors. Spending by Chinese buyers soared 72 percent from a year earlier to $22 billion, with their purchases accounting for 24 percent of spending by international buyers, the trade association said today from Washington. Total investments by foreigners jumped 35 percent. Chinese buyers acquired 16 percent of houses sold to foreigners, up 4 percentage points, spurred by currency appreciation, rising affluence and concerns about an economic slowdown in the world’s most-populous country, the group said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    August 10, 2020 —
    Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. 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

    You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?

    May 16, 2022 —
    In recent weeks, there has been a long list of companies, from all industries spanning from construction/engineering to fashion and hospitality, that have announced that they are completely severing ties with Russia, while a host of others have announced a temporary halt. See Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, Over 400 Companies Have Withdrawn from Russia – But Some Remain, Yale School of Management (Updated Mar. 21, 2022), https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-400-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain?utm_campaign=mb. For those developers, EPC contractors, and design professionals (engineers and architects) who have construction projects in Russia, the question is, “How should we proceed?” The U.S. initially stated that it was not issuing a total embargo on business dealings and trade relations with Russia in response to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the U.S., along with many other Western nations, issued targeted sanctions. See Francesco Giumelli, Understanding Targeted U.N. Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis, International Affairs, 91(6), 1351-1368 (explaining the difference between embargoes and targeted sanctions). However, after evidence of war crimes by Russia emerged, President Biden issued an Executive Order prohibiting U.S. individuals, whether in the states or abroad, from new investments in Russia and prohibiting U.S. individuals from transactions with Russian state-owned entities. See April 6, 2022, Presidential Actions, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/04/06/prohibiting-new-investment-in-and-certain-services-to-the-russian-federation-in-response-to-continued-russian-federation-aggression/. This new Executive Order is said to not affect existing contracts in Russia, but instead prohibits new ones. Reprinted courtesy of Anazette Ray, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP and Michael Vardaro, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP Ms. Ray may be contacted at aray@zdlaw.com Mr. Vardaro may be contacted at mvardaro@zdlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    September 29, 2021 —
    After suffering business losses due to a hurricane, the insured's Civil Authority claim survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Pathology Lab. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145129 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2021). Hurricane Laura devastated Lake Charles, Louisiana causing severe damage to the insured property as well as other properties within a mile of the insured property. All seven electrical transmission line corridors feeding Lake Charles were catastrophically damaged causing an extensive power outage. Government shutdown Orders prohibited the insureds' access to the Lab. The Orders were issued by the respective civil authorities both in anticipation of and as a result of damage and dangerous physical conditions expected from and actually resulting from Hurricane Laura and the continuation thereof. When the hurricane arrived, all businesses that were not essential to the recovery were ordered closed until electricity, water and sewer services were restored. As a result, the Lab was closed from August 27, 2020 toSeptember 8, 2020. The Lab sued for business income under the policy's Civil Authority provisions. Mt. Hawley moved to dismiss. Mt. Hawley argued that the Orders did not by their explicit terms close the Lab's business because closure was entirely dependent on the conditions of the described premises itself and whether it was safe to occupy. Mt. Hawley further argued that the mandatory Evacuation Order was issued in anticipation of property damage and therefore did not trigger coverage under the Civil Authority provision. 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

    A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around

    February 15, 2021 —
    This is a brief review of recent significant environmental and administrative law rulings and developments. With the change in presidential administrations, the fate of at least some of the newly promulgated rules is uncertain. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore On January 19, 2021, the Court heard oral argument in BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore. The respondents filed a Greenhous Gas Climate Change lawsuit in state court, alleging that BP, like other energy companies, is liable for significant damage caused by the sale and promotion of petroleum products while knowing that the use of these products and the resulting release of greenhouse gases damages the environment and public property. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in state courts, pleading common law violations as well as trespass and nuisance law violations The energy companies have tried, unsuccessfully to date, to remove these cases to federal court. The petitioners argue that the federal removal statutes allow the federal courts of appeal to review the lower court’s remand, thus opening the possibility that some of the issues presented in these cases can be tried in federal court, presumably a friendlier forum. A decision on this procedural issue should be rendered in a few months. 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