BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    No Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    Drill Rig Accident Kills Engineering Manager, Injures Operator in Philadelphia

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    Too Late for The Blame Game: Massachusetts Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Barred a Product Manufacturer from Seeking Contribution from a Product Installer

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

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

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Understanding the Miller Act

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses
    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

    Fourteen Years as a Solo!

    July 08, 2024 —
    I have always found it appropriate that my jump to solo practice and Independence Day are so close in time. Today marks 14 years since my first day as a solo practitioner of construction law at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Time sure has flown by thanks to the great clients and friends who followed me to solo practice and whom I have met since the firm’s founding on July 1, 2010. I also could not have made the transition and had the fun and success I have enjoyed over the past 14 years without the support of the best wife and family that any construction lawyer could want. Since the firm’s last anniversary, my youngest child (who was 7 when this journey began!) started and completed her junior year at N. C. State University and is currently in Idaho working as an intern for Idaho Fish & Game, my second oldest is an assistant director of admissions at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, and is newly married, and my oldest has bought a home, adopted an adorable golden retriever puppy, and celebrated her third marriage anniversary. Our home in Captiva, Florida has also continued its recovery from Hurricane Ian. Professionally, I’ve had a great year. I am serving as the Vice Chair of the Section Council of the Virginia Bar Association Construction and Public Contracts Law section. I was also honored to be nominated and elected to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law for the 17th straight year and to the Virginia Super Lawyers in Construction Litigation for the 8th year running. I also continued to have the opportunity to teach in various construction-related venues on relevant topics and to help out some of the best clients around. I have also continued to grow my ADR practice, including arbitration and mediation. 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

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    May 13, 2024 —
    Williams County, North Dakota, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the state’s fracking boom. In the past decade, millions of barrels of oil have been pumped from its land, and the population of its largest city, Williston, has doubled. But as the oil flowed and workers poured in to staff the rigs, housing options quickly ran dry. The region’s uneven expansion has led to an eviction crisis for the county’s 39,000 residents, according to a recent paper from a group of sociologists affiliated with Princeton University’s Eviction Lab. Williams County saw its eviction rate go from “nearly non-existent” in 2010 to over 7% a decade later, the study found. By 2019, at the height of its oil boom — when the state accounted for 11% of the country’s oil production — its eviction filing rate was comparable to that of large, renter-heavy cities like New York City or Philadelphia, according to Eviction Lab. Though oil production peaked in 2019, the problem hasn’t abated: From January through November 2023, more than 550 evictions were recorded by the Williams County Sheriff’s office, up around 30% from the previous full year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Holder, Bloomberg

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    December 20, 2012 —
    The former head of Orients Construction Company and of Melrose Construciton Company, Herlindo Garcia-Merlos, has entered a guilty plea to charges that the gave false informoation to his insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group, for more than three years in order to lower his workers compensation payments. Mr. Garcia-Merlos was able to underpay by more than $315,000 as a result of this deception. Mr. Garcia-Merlos additionally failed to file tax returns for his companies and underreported his wages on his own tax returns. The State of New Jersey is seeking an eight-year prison term and restitution of more than $400,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    September 28, 2017 —
    If you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market. BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    June 10, 2019 —
    The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
    Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

    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

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    December 21, 2020 —
    If you are a member of the California construction industry you might know that the right of a contractor, subcontractor or supplier to record a mechanics lien to protect the right to payment is well protected by state law. In fact, our California Constitution, article XIV, Sec. 3 specifically elevates the right to a mechanics lien to “Constitutional right”. The right to a mechanics lien is further protected by a statutory framework, including Civil Code sec. 8122 which states:
    “An owner, direct contractor, or subcontractor may not, by contract or otherwise, waive, affect, or impair any other claimant’s rights under this part, whether with or without notice, and any term of a contract that purports to do so is void and unenforceable unless and until the claimant executes and delivers a waiver and release under this article.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    December 04, 2018 —
    Back in February, I discussed a case relating to indemnity and ambiguity. The opinion in that case, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al., allowed a breach of contract and indemnity claim to move forward despite the fact that conflicting term sheets between the plaintiff and defendant could have been read to violate Virginia law by requiring indemnity for English’s own negligence. In other words, the ambiguity worked in English’s favor (though that is not something to count on). The Court did not however address whether there was any negligence on English’s part and if there was, what was the contractual effect. I’ll bet you were wondering what happened later in that case. Well, here’s the answer. In a subsequent opinion, the Court looked at the same ambiguous and conflicting term sheets between and among those defendants that were required to provide quality assurance services for the construction of a bridge in western Virginia. For the full procedural and factual analysis, be sure to read the full memorandum opinion linked above. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com