BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut industrial building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut casino resort Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut office building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominiums Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominium Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut production housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut Medical building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut parking structure Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut tract home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut institutional building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Wilke Fleury and Attorneys Recognized as ‘Best Law Firm’ and ‘Best Lawyers’ by U.S. News!

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Consultant 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 Consultant News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    September 21, 2020 —
    In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
    1. Procure or obtain;
    2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
    3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
    Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    September 28, 2020 —
    With a still-growing list of repairs needed to restore the barge-damaged Pensacola Bay Bridge, the Florida Dept. of Transportation has yet to determine a timeline for completing repairs. But assessments by the agency’s inspectors indicate that impacts from several Skanska-owned construction barges that unmoored during Hurricane Sally not only resulted in five irreparable spans, as previously reported, but at least two more that will require partial replacement. Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    October 19, 2020 —
    Courts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided. In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kean Maynard, White and Williams
    Mr. Maynard may be contacted at maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    September 21, 2020 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    September 14, 2020 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, we have discussed mechanic’s lien law in Virginia on multiple occasions. We have discussed everything from the very picky nature of the perfection and enforcement of these liens to the changes that the Virginia General Assembly periodically makes to these requirements and how to defend against such liens. While the steps taken and content of a Virginia mechanic’s lien will be strictly construed by the Virginia courts, when perfected properly, a mechanic’s lien can and will put you as a construction company seeking payment in a better position than if no lien were recorded. The direct benefit is that you now hold a lien on the property on which you performed work that takes a priority (read will be paid before) any mortgage or other lien on that structure. In other words, if you, the bank, or the owner seeks to sell the property through foreclosure or otherwise, mechanic’s lien holders generally get paid first. While there are exceptions to be explored with an experienced Virginia construction attorney, this is the general rule and the power of a mechanic’s lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    September 07, 2020 —
    Earlier this year, Assemblyman Edwin Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced Assembly Bill 2320. AB 2320, if passed, would require any business that contracts with the state and has access to records containing personal information protected under the state’s Information Practices Act (IPA) to maintain cyber insurance coverage. Information covered under the IPA includes names, social security numbers, physical descriptions, home addresses, home telephone numbers, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. Requiring contractors to maintain cyber insurance will likely both shift the costs of cyberattacks from taxpayers to the private sector, while also encouraging robust cyber security practices among businesses of all sizes. While the bill has not yet passed, businesses will be best served by implementing and improving cybersecurity practices now in order to attain lowest premium rates in the future. Incentivizing Best Practices With the adoption of AB 2320, businesses will be incentivized to increase their security posture in order to receive lower premiums from insurers. Simultaneously, insurers will be incentivized to mandate best practices from their insureds in order to mitigate their risk of having to pay out on cyber insurance policies. Thus, cyber insurance will work as a vehicle to increase best practices in businesses and subsequently decrease vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. Reprinted courtesy of Makenna Miller, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Ms. Miller may be contacted at makenna.miller@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    May 25, 2020 —
    The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception. While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution. In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides. This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine and Michael W. Horner Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    June 29, 2020 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked the #5 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2020 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms. Gordon & Rees is the only California-based law firm to rank in the Top 25. The firm was ranked in the Top 10 in more specific areas as well.
    • #1 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Most Locations
    • #2 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of Construction Attorneys
    • #6 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of States Admitted to Practice
    “With offices throughout the nation and outstanding construction attorneys in many of those offices, we are able to offer our construction clients a diverse range of legal services wherever they do business,” said Ernie Isola partner and co-chair of the firm’s construction practice group. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani