BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


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

    Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

    Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

    Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope
    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

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    July 13, 2017 —
    The City of Seattle’s City Purchasing & Contracting Services recently revised its General Special Provisions for City construction contracts to add new “Acceptable Worksite” language. The City indicates that the purpose of the provisions is “to ensure that City construction worksites are respectful and appropriate, including prohibiting bullying, hazing, and other similar behaviors.” An “Acceptable Worksite” is defined as a worksite “that is appropriate, productive, and safe work for all workers” and “free from behaviors that may impair production, and/or undermine the integrity of the work conditions including but not limited to job performance, safety, productivity, or efficiency of workers.” Prohibited behaviors under the new specification provisions include persistent offensive conduct and language, hazing, offensive jokes about race, gender, or sexuality, assigning undesirable tasks or unskilled work to trained apprentices and journey-level workers, refusal to hire based on race, gender, or sexuality, and references to or requests for immigration status. The new program also includes monitoring, response, and enforcement of the provisions by City Purchasing and Contracting Services employees. Finally, the language must also be incorporated into all sub-tier contracts on City projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    November 30, 2017 —
    The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    June 06, 2022 —
    If you are an unpaid contractor in direct contract with the owner of real property, you should be serving a Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit prior to foreclosing on your construction lien. This should extend to any trade contractor hired directly by the owner. As a matter of course, I recommend any lienor hired directly by the owner that wants to foreclose its lien to serve a Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit. For example, if you are a plumbing contractor hired by the owner and want to foreclose your lien, serve the Affidavit. If you are a swimming pool contractor hired by the owner and want to foreclose your lien, serve the Affidavit. You get the point. (If you are not in direct contract with the owner, you do not need to serve the Affidavit, but you need to make sure you timely served your Notice to Owner; when you are in direct contract with the owner, you do not need to serve the Notice to Owner because the owner already knows you exist.) The Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit is a statutory form. I suggest working with counsel to help execute to avoid any doubts with the information to include. The unpaid amount listed should correspond with the amount in your lien and you want to identify all unpaid lienors (your subcontractors and suppliers) and amounts you believe they are owed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    September 03, 2014 —
    Forest City Ratner Cos., the initial developer of Brooklyn’s $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project surrounding Barclays Center arena, exchanged lawsuits with the Swedish construction firm Skanska AB (SKAB) over claims of design flaws and delays in building a stalled residential tower. The lawsuits, filed today in Manhattan state court, focus on a contract for the 34-floor “modular” residential high-rise building under construction next to the arena for the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets that opened in 2012 as the centerpiece of the former rail yard and a symbol of the New York borough’s resurgence. Skanska, a Stockholm-based firm that has grown to become New York’s second-largest building contractor, seeks at least $50 million in damages for changes to the building that were made without consultation, according to its complaint. Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner blames Skanska for the project’s problems, citing “tens of millions of dollars” in cost overruns caused by a lack of skill and a failure to adhere to terms of the 2012 contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erik Larson, Bloomberg
    Mr. Larson may be contacted at elarson4@bloomberg.net

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    December 09, 2011 —

    Although the excess carrier was given inadequate notice of the underlying arbitration, the trial court determined it shared responsibility with the primary carrier for the arbitration award. Finding disputed issues of fact, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Century Surety Co., 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 2488 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011).

    The primary insurer, American States, issued two liability policies to Professional Home Builders (PHB), a siding contractor. The policies were for successive years, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Each policy had annual limits of $1 million per occurrence. PHB also had a commercial excess liability policy for 1999-2000 with Century Surety Company.

    PHB was sued by Residential Investment Partners (RIP) for construction defects after moisture entered the building envelope, causing decay and damage. Century’s expert determined the decay started before the 1999-2000 policy period.

    RIP and PHB went to arbitration.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    June 18, 2019 —
    Two former top executives of New York City-based engineer HAKS pleaded guilty in city court May 13 to bribe charges related to efforts to gain municipal water infrastructure contracts, according to court filings, an attorney for its ex-chief financial officer and plea agreements provided to ENR by the Manhattan district attorney's office. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

    November 13, 2023 —
    I have discussed the need for attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my construction contract basics posts. Why would you want such a provision? The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision. Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs. In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise. While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia. Throw in the fact that Virginia courts strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method. 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

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    December 10, 2024 —
    In a previous post, we discussed delays on construction projects including (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. We also reviewed the common methods of delay analysis include (1) the Total Cost Method, (2) the Modified Total Cost Approach, and (3) the Measured Mile Method. Once you have determined the type of delay and the method to be used to analyze and quantify the delay, it is important to understand the type of documents/evidence needed to support your claim for delay. If a party determines that they are entitled to some type of recovery for the delay, the party making a claim for delay, such as a contractor, must have the proper documentation/evidence to assist in proving entitlement for damages from the delay. Without the proper back-up, contractors are generally unable to recover all of the additional costs and expenses associated with the delays or, at best, recover only an “equitable” amount. Generally, damages must be proved with reasonable certainty and may not be based on speculation or conjecture. Thus, it is crucial for a party asserting a delay to have the proper documentation to support a delay claim, if the goal is to recover the damages associated with the delay. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
    Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com