BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”

    Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

    MTA Debarment Update

    Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    How Fort Lauderdale Recovered a Phished $1.2M Police HQ Project Payment

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    Improvements to AIA Contracts?

    Strangers in a Strange Land: Revisiting Arbitration Provisions to Account for Increasing International Influences

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform
    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 more than 25 years 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

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    September 03, 2014 —
    The collapse in U.S. home prices that stoked the worst recession since the Great Depression wasn’t quite as severe as initially estimated, according to data from S&P/Case-Shiller. Property values nationally fell 26 percent from the February 2007 peak to the December 2011 trough, not 34 percent as previously reported, revised data showed last week. The index will now be issued monthly rather than quarterly. The change is the result of CoreLogic Inc. (CLGX)’s $6 million purchase of the S&P/Case-Shiller index from technology company Fiserv Inc. in March 2013. Case-Shiller has spent more than a year retrofitting its model with CoreLogic’s bigger, higher-quality data set, leading to a change in how the index looks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lorraine Woellert, Bloomberg
    Ms. Woellert may be contacted at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    March 09, 2020 —
    Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    November 28, 2022 —
    In the current regulatory environment, it is important for contractors to remain vigilant of heightened anti-competitive enforcement in the construction and procurement spheres by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Such vigilance should include, among other things, regular review of applicable laws and implementation of related updates to compliance policies, as well as careful evaluation of joint venture (JV), subcontractor, and teaming agreements.  Recent DOJ Activity Opens The Door To Broader Antitrust Exposure For Contractors Many contractors include exclusivity and non-compete clauses in their vertical agreements, including subcontractor agreements and certain types of JV and teaming agreements. In fact, many widely available “checklists” for drafting these agreements recommend including such provisions; however, under U.S. antitrust law, particularly as enforced by the DOJ in the last 1-2 years, exclusivity and non-compete clauses may be construed as unduly competition-restricting. Although no court has yet held that exclusivity and non-compete clauses in vertical agreements violate antitrust laws, recent aggressive enforcement activity by the DOJ with regard to horizontal no-poach agreements suggests that the investigatory headwinds may be blowing in that direction. Reprinted courtesy of John F. Finnegan, III, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Dominick Weinkam, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Finnegan may be contacted at jfinnegan@watttieder.com Mr. Weinkam may be contacted at dweinkam@watttieder.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Ordered to Participate in Appraisal

    March 27, 2023 —
    The court found that the insured's request for an appraisal was timely and ordered the insurer to participate. Cloisters of Naples, Inc v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6884 (M.D. Flag. Jan. 13, 2023). A hurricane damaged Cloisters, a condominium. Cloisters made a claim under its commercial insurance policy with Landmark. Landmark acknowledged coverage but failed to pay what Cloisters thought was needed. Cloisters sued. The policy had a standard appraisal provision, but another clause had a suit litigation provision requiring a request for appraisal within two years after physical loss to the property. The dispute was whether Florida law, allowing appraisal clauses to be valid for 130 years, or Georgia law, which had no such extension on requesting an appraisal. Landmark contended the contract was formed in Georgia, so its law should apply. Florida followed the lure of lex loci, which provided that the law of the jurisdiction where the contract was executed governed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

    July 27, 2020 —
    People do the darnedest things. The next case, Carmel Development Company v. Anderson, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but also covers some new ground. Carmel Development Company v. Anderson Carmel Development Company, Inc. provided design and construction services at a luxury subdivision known as Monterra Ranch located in Monterey under an oral contract with developer Monterra LLC which spanned over more than a decade. Between 1996 and 2008, Carmel was involved in the infrastructure design and construction of the subdivision including lot design and layout, the location of building envelopes on each lot, water and sewage system layout and design, and roadway design, construction and repair. When roughly half of the lots were developed and sold Monterra ran out of money and Carmel sued. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    May 08, 2023 —
    From the outside, the facade of 2050 M Street, an office building in Washington, DC, looks like it’s made with liquid soap. Standing inside and looking out, its structure is almost invisible. The building, which was finished in 2020, boasts an ethereal curtain wall, created from hundreds of fluted planes of glass treated with a special industrial coating. The result is a multifaceted surface that pushes the limits of transparency, enhanced with a silver opal shine. According to Joshua Ramus, founding principal of the architecture firm REX, the 12-story structure’s design reflects Washington’s building history, while its construction required a rather novel procurement process. The building, he says, is very much a DC story. Each of its 978 glass panels is concave, shaped using an innovative machine called a bending tempering furnace. Curving glass makes it stronger as a material, and this building’s panes are strong enough to stand up with minimal infrastructure. The building doesn’t employ mullions, window components that hold glass in place. Even a few years ago, achieving such an effect by shaping pieces of glass would have been prohibitively expensive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    July 04, 2023 —
    In 2018, the Washington Legislature amended its prevailing wages statute adopting S.S.B 5493 and codified as RCW 39.12.015(3). RCW 39.12.015(3) changed how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician set the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, from a county-by-county basis to a “geographic jurisdiction” basis established in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) or if multiple CBAs, the CBA with the higher wage would prevail. This change proved problematic for contractors since it allowed a minority of employees to determine the prevailing wage through side agreements and limited meaningful wage negotiations by industry trade groups. Contrary to the previous rule wherein wages were set by the average or majority wage rate in a certain county (which was normally the collectively bargained wage) and provided some flexibility to the industrial statistician in determining the prevailing wage, now, RCW 39.12.015(3)(a) directs the industrial statistician to “establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage … paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in [CBAs],” removing flexibility, and requiring the inclusion of CBA (which could encompass multiple counties) wage rates as a part of the prevailing wage formula. Reprinted courtesy of Brett Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight and Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    March 07, 2014 —
    Less than two years have passed since the billion dollar Las Vegas VA Medical Center construction was completed, and “earthmovers have begun churning the site again, this time to expand the hospital’s emergency room because the existing one is inadequate,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The new emergency room project is estimated to cost $16 million. The current emergency room’s design is flawed. “VA officials this week couldn’t explain why the ambulance parking area was designed to be roughly 50 yards from the emergency room’s south entrance, a distance that adds critical seconds to a lifesaving situation,” reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Furthermore, VA officials did not confirm “who drew up the flawed design” or who “was responsible for checking the blueprints.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported that another reason for the expansion is that the current emergency room is too small. A VA spokesman had told the journal that “the emergency room ‘was built based on the workload and the funding that was available at the time,’” yet the journal pointed out that “the number of potential veterans projected to use the center” has remained constant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of