BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

    New Jersey’s Proposed Construction Defect Law May Not Cover Everything

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

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

    Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Hudson Tunnel Plan Shows Sign of Life as U.S. Speeds Review
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    October 30, 2018 —
    The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has now held that the Spearin doctrine applies to design-build subcontractors where the subcontractor is expected to design a portion of their work. The case is United States for the use and benefit of Bonita Pipeline, Inc., et al. v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC, et al. (“Bonita Pipeline”) (Case No. 3:16-cv-00983-H-AGS). In Bonita Pipeline, a subcontractor sued the general contractor and its sureties alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, declaratory relief, and recovery under the Miller Act. The subcontractor then filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the general contractor on its declaratory relief cause of action, seeking a finding that the general contractor could not shift legal responsibility for its defective plans and specifications to the subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Castro, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Castro may be contacted at jcastro@grsm.com

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    June 28, 2013 —
    In a long running suit regarding thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought against Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, the California appellate court held that the excess carrier's indemnity obligation did not attach until all collectible primary policies were exhausted. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 215 Cal. App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. April 8, 2013). Kaiser manufactured a variety of asbestos-containing products from 1944 through the 1970's. Truck Insurance Company provided primary insurance to Kaiser from 1964 to 1983, through four CGL policies covering 19 annual policy periods. The policy in effect from 1974 to 1981 contained a $500,000 "per occurrence" liability limit. Kaiser was insured by three other primary carriers between 1947 and 1987. ICSOP issued a first layer excess policy to Kaiser from 1974 through 1976. Kaiser tendered numerous claims for bodily injury to Truck. By October 2004, Truck's indemnity payments exceeded $50 million and included at least 39 claims that resulted in payments in excess of $500,000. For claims alleging bodily injury in 1974, Kaiser selected Truck's 1974 policy to respond to each of the claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work

    February 16, 2016 —
    In Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd. v. Joe Allbaugh, et al., No. 03-14-00131-CV, 2015 WL 9436630 (Tex.App.-Austin Dec. 23, 2015), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, considered the circumstances under which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a non-contracting party’s property. The court held that, because the general contractor, Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd. (Zbranek), exercised control over the construction of the fireplace at issue, Zbranek owed a duty of care to the first lessees of the home that Zbranek built. In Zbranek, Bella Cima Developments, L.P. (Bella Cima) hired Zbranek to act as the general contractor for the construction of a home. As the general contractor, Zbranek engaged various subcontractors to perform different aspects of the construction, including the framing, stucco and masonry work for an outdoor fireplace. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    October 21, 2019 —
    I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. 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

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    March 04, 2019 —
    When American colonists planned downtown Annapolis, Maryland in 1695, they wanted easy access to the sea. Almost 325 years later, the sea is now closer than ever. It’s so close, in fact, that 16 small businesses lost roughly 2 percent of their revenue in 2017. In a first-of-its-kind study, Stanford University and Naval Academy researchers looked at the effect of sea-level rise on a single city-block. Specifically, they examined sunny-day floods—inundation that occurs when infrastructure built for lower waters is no longer sufficient to keep back the highest tides—at a central parking lot at City Dock. As sea levels rise, these “nuisance floods” are becoming more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the U.S. grew from two per year to nearly 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    February 14, 2013 —
    A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    February 11, 2019 —
    Jan. 10 --A series of "prematurely" awarded rail contracts doled out to construction companies as early as 2009 prompted delay claims and change orders that increased the cost of the Honolulu rail project by more than $354 million , according to a new report by the Hawaii State Auditor released today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    May 07, 2015 —
    D.R. Horton Inc., the largest U.S. homebuilder by revenue, said fiscal second-quarter earnings rose as sales increased in a sign of growing demand for new homes. Net income climbed to $147.9 million, or 40 cents a share, for the three months ended March 31 from $131 million, or 38 cents, a year earlier, the Fort Worth, Texas-based company said Wednesday in a statement. The average of 15 analyst estimates was 38 cents a share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. “The spring selling season at D.R. Horton is off to a strong start,” Chairman Donald R. Horton said in the statement. “Our increasingly diverse product offerings are enabling us to expand our industry-leading market share.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net