BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management 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


    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Claims Litigated Under Government Claims Act Must “Fairly Reflect” Factual Claims Made in Underlying Government Claim

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

    PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Edison Utility Accused of Igniting LA Fire in Lawsuits

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    On-Site Supersensing and the Future of Construction Automation – Discussion with Aviad Almagor
    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

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    February 18, 2019 —
    The California Legislature introduced more than 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session that became law effective January 1, 2019, many of which address employment issues facing California employers in the construction industry. Below we have summarized some of the more important laws (the summary titles are live links to the text of the new law), and employers are urged to protect their companies by updating contracts, policies, and/or practices for compliance. The following is for general knowledge, and we recommend you consult with your attorney for specific legal advice. AB 1565 – Contractor Wage Liability: AB 1565 repeals the provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions, including interest owed. In the past, a direct contractor could withhold “disputed” sums owed to a subcontractor if the subcontractor failed to provide “information” about their and lower-tier subcontractors’ payroll records. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
    Smith Currie attorneys may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

    Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors

    September 03, 2015 —
    What is a subcontractor to do when the owner has demanded additional work, but has refused to pay for it? Typically, a subcontractor cannot sue the owner because the subcontractor doesn’t have a contract with the owner. Perhaps the subcontractor and general contractor should enter into a liquidating agreement through which the general contractor can pursue the claim on behalf of the subcontractor. Liquidating agreements bridge the privity gap between owners and subcontractors who sustain damages because of the others actions. Liquidating agreements or pass-through agreements grant the general contractor a release of its liability to the subcontractor after the general contractor prosecutes the subcontractor’s pass-through claim against the owner and gives the subcontractor any recovery. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    August 21, 2023 —
    In Nationwide Prop & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fireline Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00684, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104241, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (District Court) considered whether the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a previously formed agreement, thereby rendering the plaintiff’s claims subject to the agreement’s time limitation and waiver of subrogation provisions. The District Court found that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement. The plaintiff, Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Maple Lawn Homeowners Association, Inc. (Maple Lawn) for common property located in Fulton, Maryland, including a community center (the Subject Premises). On January 18, 2018, Maple Lawn entered into an Inspection Agreement (the Agreement) with defendant, Fireline Corporation (Fireline), wherein Fireline agreed to provide:
    • annual fire alarm inspection and testing services,
    • quarterly sprinkler inspection and testing, and
    • annual portable fire extinguisher testing and inspection.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    January 22, 2014 —
    In the case Port Liberte II Condominium Association v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Company, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a homeowners association (HOA) could bypass a bylaw that requires unit owners to approve litigation before it is filed, the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Two construction-defect suits were reinstated by the appeals court, and both had been “dismissed based on alleged violation of the bylaws.” The first suit “claimed the defendants' negligence contributed to major construction defects at the 225-unit condominium development, which was completed in 2004” while “the second suit claimed that one section of the development is sinking into the ground because of a failure to properly investigate soil conditions at the former industrial site where the buildings sit.” According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the HOA did not obtain approval from the unit owners prior to commencing litigation because “the statute of limitations was about to expire.” However, the HOA met with the residents in October of 2009 and a vote was cast “72 to 3 to pursue litigation.” In May of 2011 the second suit was dismissed because defendants stated “approval of residents was not obtained.” Another meeting of residents occurred, and another vote cast ratified “both suits by a vote of 65 to 1.” However, Judge Baber, who had previously dismissed both suits, refused to reinstate them. “The Appellate Division said in its ruling that the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1, gives the association the exclusive authority to file suit against builders and other third parties for damage to common areas in the community,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. “Given its legal responsibility for upkeep of common areas, and its statutory authorization to sue for damages to such areas, the association had standing to file suit, the appeals court said.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    June 18, 2014 —
    Citigroup Inc. (C) paid a record HK$5.4 billion ($697 million) to a unit of Wheelock & Co. for a Hong Kong office tower that will bring most of its 5,000 employees under one roof. The price for the 512,000 square-foot property in Kowloon is the largest ever office transaction in Hong Kong, the New York-based bank said in a statement yesterday. The tower, scheduled for completion by the end of 2015, will be used to house staff currently spread out across offices in the city, said Weber Lo, the bank’s chief executive officer for Hong Kong and Macau. Citigroup joins banks and insurers in buying buildings in the city as falling vacancies pose a challenge for companies looking for large office spaces, realtor CBRE Group Inc., which advised the deal, said in a first-quarter review report. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Yun, Bloomberg
    Ms. Yun may be contacted at myun11@bloomberg.net

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    August 30, 2017 —
    There is no question that organization on the job site can mean the difference between efficient performance and costly errors. A simple mistake can cost a company thousands, which is why details are carefully articulated and supervisors become better scrutinizers than magazine editors. But for some reason, many companies don’t consider managing job site inventory under this same attentive category, or perhaps they don’t know about the technology available to help them do it. Whole Inventory, Big to Small For contractors, keeping track of every piece of material and equipment lowers losses and keeps crews busy. This is especially true for contractors in the trades who often have specialized equipment in inventory such as power supplies, HVAC “smart energy” components or inspection equipment. Once everything is accounted for, the possibility of loss is decreased and there’s a chance to evaluate the use of all materials and equipment. This can show the efficiency of allotted resources. Is there enough equipment on the site to get tasks completed? Is there a need for more? Less? Having excess equipment can sometimes prepare a crew for problem scenarios. But it can also mean the construction company is overpaying for unneeded resources. However, the only way to know is by effectively managing job site inventory. That includes all equipment and materials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Stark, Construction Informer

    President Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline Bill

    February 26, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama issued his third veto Tuesday to reject legislation that would allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, escalating a battle over the project with Republicans in Congress. Notice of the long-expected veto was released without fanfare via a message to the Senate just hours after the bill formally arrived at the White House. The Senate has agreed to hold a vote on overriding the veto no later than March 3. Obama has repeatedly said a State Department review of the TransCanada Corp. project -- which would carry crude oil produced in Alberta, Canada, south through the U.S. -- should proceed before a decision is made on whether to allow construction of the $8 billion pipeline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Angela Greiling Keane, Bloomberg

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    April 27, 2020 —
    On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:
    1. Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
    2. Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
    3. Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.
    Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:
    (1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
    (2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com