BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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


    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim

    Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

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

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA
    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

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    May 12, 2016 —
    On April 21, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion that immediately drew the ire of the greater real estate development industry and those concerned about affordable housing in a state in the midst of unprecedented soaring rent and housing prices. The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A., 2016 COA 61, decision is the result of protracted litigation arising out of construction and sale of the ill-fated European Village (“Village”) residential community. For a thorough summary of the origins of the development and the unfortunate story of the man behind the curtain, review the Denver Post’s article titled “Zachary Davidson, Denver Landmark developer, and his fall from grace.” (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22656011/fall-from-grace-zach-davidson-landmark denver) Despite the unique facts and circumstances relating to the questionable dealings by the developer, Mr. Zachary Davidson, the decision now stands to turn the Colorado real estate development business on its head. Specifically, a group of condominium owners, who did not live in the Village, learned that their properties had been included in a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District (“District”), to finance the Village. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Davidson failed to disclose to the condominium owners that they would be responsible for financing the Village’s development through previously issued bonds by the District to be paid for through their property taxes. Understandably frustrated by this discovery the condominium owners, through the Landmark Towers Association, Inc. (“Landmark HOA”), investigated the origin of these unforeseen property taxes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    January 09, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Spearin, [1] also referred to as the Spearin doctrine, is a landmark construction decision.[2] The Spearin doctrine provides that the Owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an Owner provides to a General Contractor. If a Contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the Owner, the Contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications. 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

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    September 07, 2017 —
    A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts in jeopardy all of the recent real estate tax reassessments completed by the City of Philadelphia for tax year 2018 as well as appeals initiated by the School District of Philadelphia in 2016 for tax year 2017. The City’s current practice is to certify the market values of any reassessed properties to the Board of Revision of Taxes on March 31st prior to the year that the assessment would be implemented. The City then relies on those certified values to determine the applicable tax rate when it creates its budget each summer. Accordingly, the Office of Property Assessment (OPA) submitted the values applicable for the 2018 tax year to the BRT on March 31, 2017. The City set the applicable tax rates during its summer budget sessions. However, unlike prior years, this year the City only reassessed commercial and industrial properties and excluded residential properties. The result was reported to be an increase of over $118 million in new real estate taxes. Shortly after the City finished its budget, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, LP, et al. v. Upper Merion Area School District. The case involved a challenge by property owners to the Upper Merion School District’s practice of only appealing assessments on commercial properties. As with the recent reassessments by the City, Upper Merion was only seeking to increase the real estate tax assessments for high value commercial properties. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the school district’s practice violated the Uniformity Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court reaffirmed the principle that real estate within a jurisdiction should be treated as a single class and that tax authorities are not permitted to discriminate against commercial and industrial properties in favor of residential properties for purposes of real estate taxation. Reprinted courtesy of James Vandermark, White and Williams LLP and Kevin Koscil, White and Williams LLP Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    November 01, 2022 —
    Recently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation. These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building. Reprinted courtesy of Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    June 09, 2016 —
    It’s no secret that aerial photographs play an essential role in any construction project. They help with the planning process, assist builders in documenting the progress of a project, provide an opportunity to spot potential issues that would otherwise be missed, capture great marketing images, and more. It used to be the only way to get sky-view pictures for construction purposes was to hire an aerial photography team with a piloted aircraft. However, a new player has entered the scene – the drone. And whether you choose to hire a professional aerial photography team using a fixed-wing airplane, helicopter, or drone, or choose to go the DIY route, all have a place in the world of construction. But, using drones is complicated and ever evolving, so we’d like to touch on a few key points to help you understand drone aerial photography. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sherry and Brett Eklund, Desert View Aerial Photography
    Ms. and Mr. Eklund may be contacted at their website http://dvaerialphoto.com/contact/

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    February 28, 2013 —
    The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is seeking to be removed from a construction defect suit filed by Aspen homeowners. APCHA claims that it should not be a party to the suit, since it had nothing to do with the development of the Burlingame Ranch community. Responsibility should instead, according to the agency, rest with the City of Aspen. APCHA’s role was to sell the homes to individuals whom it had verified were eligible to purchase affordable housing. Tom McCabe, the director of APCHA said that “APCHA has no part in the building of housing anymore, and we haven’t for a long time.” Chris Rhody, who represents the Burlingame homeowners, feels that APCHA should be involved. The homeowners are alleging that construction defects, including cracked exterior siding, are the result of faulty materials and improper installation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    March 07, 2014 —
    Daiwa House Industry Co. (1925), Japan’s biggest homebuilder by market value, plans to invest 150 billion yen ($1.48 billion) in U.S. rental housing, three times more than it had aimed to allocate to overseas investments, to boost revenue. Daiwa House will acquire and develop leasing properties in Texas and allocate the funds over the next three years, the Osaka-based company said in an e-mailed statement today. The homebuilder targets 50 billion yen of revenue in the U.S. by the year ending March 2019, it said. Japan’s shrinking population has prompted the country’s homebuilders such as Daiwa House to seek new revenue sources. Texas is the most that Daiwa House is investing overseas for rental housing and compares with the 50 billion yen the company had announced for investments abroad in its mid-term plan in November. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net

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

    October 01, 2014 —
    According to SF Gate, almost “every one of the 423 steel rods that anchor the tower of the new Bay Bridge eastern span to its base has been sitting in potentially corrosive water, Caltrans officials said Tuesday — one of the most serious construction defects found yet on the $6.4 billion project.” About a year ago, “steel rods crucial to seismic-stabilizing structures on the bridge snapped when they were tensioned.” Fixing those rods cost $25 million, while an additional $20 million had been spent determing if “additional rods and bolts are at risk of failing.” In regards to the latest construction defects discovered, Caltrans’ chief engineer on the project, Brian Maroney, stated, “It’s not acceptable, and we’re going to fix it.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of