BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    A WARNing for Companies

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    Latest Updates On The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

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

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

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

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    NTSB Cites Design Errors in Fatal Bridge Collapse

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer
    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

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    November 10, 2016 —
    Partner Victor R. Anderson, III received the Peter Perlman Service Award in recognition of his efforts to improve the lives of others through his community service and charity work. The awards are presented to select attorneys throughout the year by the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) to candidates whose exemplary contributions merit commendation. The Litigation Counsel of America is a close-knit, peer-selected, and aggressively diverse honorary society of 3,500 of the best trial lawyers. Less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers, vigorously vetted for skills, expertise, and service are invited to be on the Counsel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victor R. Anderson, III, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Anderson may be contacted at vanderson@hbblaw.com

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    October 22, 2013 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    July 26, 2017 —
    Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner. Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    January 21, 2015 —
    What do New York’s most famous hotel, the Lloyd’s of London building and the headquarters of the U.K.’s top law firm have in common? They’re all owned by Chinese insurers. This new breed of buyers, who weren’t allowed to invest overseas before 2012, are flooding into the global market for prime commercial real estate after being given more freedom to deploy their $1.6 trillion of assets. That has meant good times for sellers of trophy real estate in major cities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vinicy Chan, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chan may be contacted at vchan91@bloomberg.net

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    February 05, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, the commercial real estate market poses a risk to financial stability, New York City moves towards net-zero building emissions, workers at several Los Angeles area hotels tentatively agree to a new contract, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    April 05, 2017 —
    After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    February 27, 2019 —
    General Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp. GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Clough, Bloomberg