BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Price Escalation Impacts

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    PulteGroup Fires Exec Accused of Defamation By Founder’s Heir

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

    Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

    Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

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

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    OIRA Best Practices for Administrative Enforcement and Adjudicative Actions

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Is Still in Trouble, Two Major Reviews Say
    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

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    December 30, 2013 —
    The 2013 numbers for home construction aren’t ready yet, but the January through November numbers for Lubbock, Texas show a 42% increase over the number of construction permits issued for single-family homes in the first 11 months of 2012. The number look even better compared to 2011’s totals, according to KFYO. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    June 19, 2023 —
    In early January, Keith Elwell was doing one of the things he does best, swinging chainsaws to help save forests from wildfire. Amid groves of junipers and white oak trees, Elwell led a team of a half-dozen volunteers, clearing brush and dead limbs in Twin Springs Preserve in Williamson County, Texas, a 170-acre county preserve a 40-minute drive north of downtown Austin. Set on the northeastern edge of Hill Country, a rolling, rocky landscape of natural springs and wild grasses, it’s also adjacent to Georgetown, the fastest-growing city in the United States according to US Census Bureau data. Once a small farming town, it’s now an Austin suburb of more than 75,000 people with 60 subdivisions under construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg

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

    February 22, 2021 —
    January 25, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order (EO) “Ensuring the Future is Made in All America by All of America’s Workers”, which seeks to bolster U.S. manufacturing through the federal procurement process. Note that, just six day earlier, on January 18, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Counsel issued a final rule implementing former President Trump’s July 2019 EO, titled “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials” (EO No. 13881) on the then-current Buy American standards. For context, Trump’s proposed revisions – adopted and implemented by the FAR Council earlier this year – imposed three (3) significant changes worth noting: (1) increasing the percentage of domestic content (other than iron or steel) from 50% to 55% that an end product must contain in order to qualify as a “domestic end product”; (2) implementing an even higher increase in the domestic content requirement for iron and steel products to at least 95% U.S. “predominately” iron or steel product; and (3) increasing the price evaluation preference for domestic offerors from 6% to 20% (for other than small business) and 30% (for small businesses). The FAR’s rule became effective January 21, 2021, and applies to solicitations issued on or after February 22, 2021, and resulting contracts let. Biden’s EO rescinds Trump’s EO No. 13881 “to the extent inconsistent with [Biden’s] EO.” However, when dissected, it is clear Biden’s Buy American plan does little to modify thresholds inconsistent with the Trump Administration; rather, the White House’s latest EO implements changes in the form of BA administration. Nonetheless, Biden’s EO does expressly note that it supersedes and replaces Trump’s EO on the same issues. Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees and Nicole Lentini, Gordon & Rees Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com Ms. Lentini may be contacted at nlentini@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    May 31, 2021 —
    The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II

    April 03, 2023 —
    Part I of this series discussed the benefits of construction participants using alternative project delivery methods and properly addressing change order issues, rising costs and payment structure issues to manage construction during these uncertain times. Part II below explores the possibility that higher prices and steady consumer demand could lead to an increase in unscrupulous contractor practices—and how owners can mitigate that risk, managing the challenges posed by the unforeseen labor shortage and turnover in the industry and evolving your construction team for short-term and long-term success. Higher Prices and Steady Demand With the demand for construction projects relatively stable, contractors remaining in high demand and a surge in prices for construction materials and components, owners are under great pressure to accept less favorable construction terms. This has presented unscrupulous contractors with perceived leverage over owners and new opportunities to engage in questionable business practices and fraud. Although some contractors may seek to stretch the boundaries of a construction contract, other contractors are more deliberate. Falsifying payment applications and invoices to inflate labor or materials costs, billing for work not yet performed or materials not yet delivered to the project site and manipulating change orders are examples of illicit and fraudulent practices by contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    November 08, 2013 —
    The Orvido, Florida city council wants to encourage commercial development, and they’re willing to do it by discouraging residential development. The impact fees for commercial buildings have dropped sharply, the Orlando Sentinel notes that for a 50,000 square-foot office building, the city is reducing the impact fee from $2,890 to $1,575, a drop of $1,313, nearly half. Meanwhile, the impact fee for single-family homes has seen an increase of seven percent, going from $3,195 to $3.433. The city is clear about its reasons. “We’re very heavy on the residential side. We want to have more high-paying jobs come into the city,” said Keith Britton, a member of the council. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    December 11, 2013 —
    Officials claimed the failure of a bridge in Afton Township, Illinois was because trucks owned by Welded Construction used the bridge despite exceeding the bridge’s weight limit of 36.5 tons. The firm argued that they should be responsible for the depreciated cost of the bridge, not its replacement cost. Welded Construction had been using the bridge to get to the site of an oil pipeline construction project for Enbridge Energy. Replacement of the bridge was initially estimated at $933,000, but that was in advance of any design work. Enbridge Energy settled the case at $900,000, which should cover most or all of the cost of repair or replacement. Some federal funds may also be available for repairing or constructing a new bridge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    September 01, 2016 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has approved a settlement between the parties to an appeal of the 2012 Colorado Pool Systems v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Court of Appeals case, leaving that ruling intact. The ruling parses a fine line between uncovered costs of repairing defective work and covered costs of damage caused to nondefective work while repairing defective work. This nuanced opinion, which is now established Colorado law, is worth a second look. In Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that so-called “rip and tear” damage caused by a construction professional to nondefective work while correcting defective work is covered as an “accident” under standard Commercial General Liability insurance language. 317 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2012). A pool company excavated and built a rebar frame in order to construct a pool, but it hired a subcontractor to pour the concrete. An inspector later noticed that some of the rebar was too close to the surface, and the pool company agreed to demolish and replace the pool after an agent of its insurer represented that this loss would be covered. But the agent was wrong, the insurer denied coverage, and litigation ensued. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Lindsay, Snell & Wilmer and Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at mlindsay@swlaw.com Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of