BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

    The Top 3 Trends That Will Impact the Construction Industry in 2024

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    EEOC Chair Issues New Report “Building for the Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry”

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

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

    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    The Latest News on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

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

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Turkey Digs Out From a Catastrophe

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom
    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

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    April 20, 2017 —
    There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how President Trump’s immigration and trade policies will affect the construction industry. In his Construction Today article, Partner Steven Cvitanovic discusses how businesses can remain competitive and profitable during this period of uncertainty, including updating contract documents, recruiting and retaining employees, and increasing cybersecurity efforts. “If you do not know when your contract documents were last updated, it’s probably been too long,” writes Cvitanovic. “Unlike wine, contract documents only get worse with age.” Cvitanovic advises teams to sit down together and review contracts to see if they still meet the firm’s needs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    September 03, 2014 —
    The city of San Diego together with the Downtown San Diego Partnership sponsored the Moving Parklet Design competition, and the winning design will be built and “used in public areas and legally permitted parking spaces throughout downtown San Diego to add a new and unique gathering space for the community,” according to the San Diego Source. A mobile parklet “is a small, innovative park that can move from location to location.” The winning team is chosen by facebook voters and will receive $5,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    October 16, 2013 —
    Describing it as “surprising to many in the residential home building industry,” Jay Drake of Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP has a piece discussing the recent California Court of Appeals decision that SB800 is not a homeowner’s only remedy for construction defects. The court found, according to Mr. Drake that “the primary purpose of the Act was to provide a property owner with remedies for repair of construction defects before the defects caused actual damages.” In the case before the court, the construction defects had already lead to further damages. Mr. Drake notes that the legislative history of SB800 puts the bill in response to an earlier California court case in which the courts determined that without actual damage to property, a homeowner could not file a construction defect lawsuit. The court concluded that SB800 was not intended to limit the homeowner’s rights after a construction defect situation has lead to damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    October 10, 2013 —
    The Colorado Pool case has been featured in two past blog entries, including: “An Arapahoe County District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retrospectively,” which discussed the case at the trial court level, and “Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy,” which discussed the case at the Court of Appeals level. In both instances, the courts held that retroactively applying C.R.S. C.R.S. § 13-20-808 to policies in effect prior to the date of the statute’s enactment would be impermissibly retrospective because it would change the coverage under the policy for which the parties had originally bargained. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    October 22, 2013 —
    The final touches are being put on two developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania. Southview, the larger of the two, comprises 35 single-family homes. Brookside comprises 16 single-family homes. During the next 18 months, the developers of the two communities will be responsible for the community improvements. If, after 18 months, these pass inspection, the township’s engineering firm will recommend that Sanatoga take responsibility for upkeep. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    April 03, 2023 —
    DC Condominium Association’s Can Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages in Construction Defect Cases Involving Misrepresentation The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) § 28-3905(k)(1)(A) creates a private legal claim (a/k/a “cause of action”) which can be asserted by a condominium unit owners association (“condominium association”) on behalf of two or more of its unit owner members who are misled by a condominium developer regarding the condition or quality of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium. Under the DC CPPA, a successful claimant is entitled to recover “treble damages” (i.e., three times the amount of damages it proves), plus recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” incurred in prosecuting the construction defect claim and “[a]ny other relief the court determines proper,” including non-attorney fee litigation expenses. DC CPPA § 28-3905(k)(2)(A), (B) and (F). The CPPA Creates the Legal Claim that Allows a Condominium Associations to Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages The DC CPPA is a consumer-oriented statute designed to protect Washington DC consumers misled in connection with the purchase of consumer “real estate,” including transactions involving the purchase of a condominium unit and interest in the condominium common elements. Typically, these cases involve the sale of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium, which, contrary to developer representations, contains latent construction defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    April 08, 2014 —
    The insured's claim for contingent business interruption ("CBI") coverage was denied in Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3096 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014). Millenium processed titanium dioxide, a compound used for its white pigmentation, at its plant in Western Australia. Millennium purchased natural gas to process the titanium dioxide from Alinta Sales Pty Ltd., a natural gas supplier. Alinta purchased gas from Apache Corporation. Once Apache processed the natural gas, it was injected into a pipeline. The gas from Apache's facility was commingled with that obtained from other producers, resulting in a mix of gas in a single pipeline. Alinta had sole ownership of the gas once it entered the pipeline. Under Alinta's contract with Millennium, title to the gas passed to Millenium only at the time of delivery, i.e., when the gas left the pipeline and was delivered to Millennium's facility through a separate delivery line. Millennium had no contract or business relationship with Apache, and the contract it had with Alinta made no reference to Apache. An explosion occurred at Apache's facility causing its natural gas production to cease. As a result, Millennium's gas supply was curtailed, and it was force to shut down its operations for a number of months. 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

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    September 14, 2017 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been horizontal exhaustion of underlying insurance, but there is no “universal horizontal exhaustion” because the order or sequence in which excess policies may be accessed depends on the specific policy wording at issue. The coverage lawsuit was initiated by Montrose in 1990, when it was named in environmental actions for continuous and progressive property damage emanating from its Torrance chemical plant since the 1960s. Montrose had varying levels of insurance coverage throughout, but the total limits and attachment points of differing levels of excess coverage in any given year had changed from year-to-year. The coverage action was stayed in 2006 due to concern of prejudice to the underlying defense, but the stay was lifted in 2014 with Montrose entering a consent decree in the CERCLA action. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of