BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Solutions To 4 Common Law Firm Diversity Challenges

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Returns as a Sponsor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio

    Trump Order Waives Project Environment Rules to Push COVID-19 Recovery

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

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

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Texas Walks the Line on When the Duty to Preserve Evidence at a Fire Scene Arises

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    What is a Personal Injury?

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

    Improvements to AIA Contracts?

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning

    Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation
    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

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    January 27, 2020 —
    Recent research backs up what we already know from practice: construction work is suboptimal. What happens on a construction site has not kept up with the demands of an increasingly complex work environment. Situational awareness could give on-site employees the necessary means to finally reap the productivity benefits of digitalization. Under the guidance of Professor Olli Seppänen, research teams at the Finnish Aalto University have delved into everyday conditions at a construction site. With the workers’ permission, they used video cameras, sensors, and surveys to locate the bottlenecks in productivity. The researchers also monitored the movement of products and materials on a construction site. The results are eye-opening. According to Aalto’s data, digitalization has not improved the productivity of construction foremen and workers. A typical worker still spends up to 70% of their time on activities that add no value: searching for information, unnecessary movement, and waiting. Construction materials are moved from place to place six times on the site before being consumed. In addition, especially on large construction sites, machinery often goes missing or is displaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    June 02, 2016 —
    In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
    A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    May 13, 2014 —
    According to The Real Deal, the New York Developer Jeshayahu “Shaya” Boymelgreen claims to owe $50 million in court judgments. Currently, Boymelgreen faces “a $1.2 million judgment in a lawsuit connected to his River Lofts condominium in Tribeca.” Furthermore, Boymelgreen is a co-defendant (along with Africa Israel) “in a separate suit at 15 Broad Street, where New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating the developers over the failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy at the condominium, which is marketed under the name Downtown By Starck.” Boymelgreen had been “held in contempt after failing to respond to a 2013 subpoena…requesting all financial and legal records.” The Real Deal reported that Boymelgreen declared that all documents were lost when his company’s offices “were taken by eminent domain about five years ago.” The Real Deal could not reach Boymelgreen or his lawyer for comment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    January 26, 2017 —
    The Delaware River Bridge, which runs between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was shut down indefinitely over the Jan. 22-23 weekend, after a large fracture was discovered in the bridge that connects the turnpikes of the two states. The fracture on a steel truss below the bridge deck on the Pennsylvania side was discovered during a routine check as part of a painting operation. Steel plates were installed to temporarily reconnect the fracture and stabilize the 1.5-mile bridge, which is located in Bucks County on I-276 and accommodates 42,000 vehicles a day. As engineers assess how the damage will impact the entire bridge, a sample from the fractured truss was sent to a forensic lab to determine the cause of the crack. A high-definition video survey is being used to monitor the bridge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

    August 21, 2023 —
    A performance bond surety for a defaulted general contractor principal found itself with a recalcitrant owner which refused to accept the tender of a replacement general contractor to complete a $3,000,000 construction project in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Even before the original GC was off the job, the surety – having been notified of the contractor’s difficulties in performing the work – stepped in promptly, providing assistance in the form of an additional contractor. At the surety’s behest, that additional contractor remained on the project (focused principally at the time on roof repairs) after the initial GC was placed in default and terminated. Eventually, the surety, by draft tender agreement issued to the owner, offered that the additional contractor serve as the completion contractor for the entire project (not simply the roof repairs), a proposal rejected by the owner – which had never cared for the additional contractor. Instead, the owner proposed its own completion contractor and, in connection with that offer, demanded a sum of money ($1.6 million) from the surety – a proposal the surety rejected: “[Owner] cannot choose whatever contractor it wants to complete the work and then charge the costs to [the surety]." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    May 04, 2020 —
    “We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.” -Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council: Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Dudum may be contacted at tara.dudum@ndlf.com

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    June 21, 2017 —
    According to a quick Google search the term “holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client. Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently leaving our client holding the bag. Fortunately, we were able to hand the bag back to the State and obtain full payment for the services and materials provided. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minahan, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    March 06, 2022 —
    It is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts. THE COURTS OF APPEAL The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al. On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com