BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Tornado Damages Throughout U.S.

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

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

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy
    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. Leveraging 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

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    February 05, 2015 —
    In Anten v. Superior Court (No. B258437 – Filed 1/30/2015), the Second Appellate District held that when joint clients do not sue each other, but one of them sues their former attorney, the nonsuing client cannot prevent the parties to the malpractice suit from discovering or introducing otherwise privileged attorney-client communications made in the course of the joint representation. Under California Evidence Code §958, in lawsuits between an attorney and a client based on an alleged breach of a duty arising from their attorney-client relationship, communications relevant to the alleged breach are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Similarly, Evidence Code §962 provides that if multiple clients retain or consult with an attorney on a matter of common interest and the joint clients later sue each other, then the communications between either client and the attorney made in the course of that relationship are not privileged in the suit between the clients. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    November 05, 2014 —
    Sellar Property Group, developer of the Shard in London, won local government approval to build a 26-story residential tower close to the skyscraper on the south bank of the River Thames. The council for the Southwark borough voted in favor of the 148-apartment project, which also includes a 16-story tower, at a meeting yesterday, Sellar spokesman Baron Phillips said by e-mail. The project, like the Shard, will be developed in a partnership with the state of Qatar. Developers plan to construct more than 25,000 luxury properties in London worth more than 60 billion pounds ($96 billion) over the next decade, EC Harris said in an Oct. 7 report. The homes approved yesterday at the Fielden House site are expected to sell for about 800,000 pounds each, according to a filing by the borough. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg
    Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    February 14, 2023 —
    If a construction company takes on a lot of work, it’s a good thing, right? Not exactly. In fact, overextension is one of the primary reasons why contractors fail. And it’s something that contractors should consider as a priority for their risk management plan. Of the 43,277 construction businesses that started in March 2011, only 37.6% of companies survived 10 years later.1 “The construction industry has a high rate of failure,” explains Tim Holicky, senior executive underwriter in The Hartford’s construction central bond team. “And more often than not, it’s because of too much work, rather than too little of it. The key to a contractor’s long-term survival is knowing when to say no.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    February 21, 2013 —
    On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care

    October 10, 2013 —
    Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property. Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
    Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    March 12, 2014 —
    Federal Reserve efforts to nurture a more robust rate of inflation this year are likely to fall short. The reason: the biggest gains in rents are probably over. The costs to lease residential real estate, the second-biggest component of the price measure tracked by U.S. central bankers, helped put a floor under inflation over the past two years as most other components decelerated. Now, with builders cranking out a record number of multifamily buildings and the job market still far from tight, the outlook for rents is the bleakest it’s been in four years. “Because the economy is still not in the strongest position and certainly the labor market is not in the strongest position, landlords really can’t extract much more in the way of rent growth,” said Ryan Severino, a senior economist at real-estate data provider Reis Inc. in New York. Also, rents are already high, which makes more increases difficult, he said. Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Mr. Kolet may be contacted at ikolet@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko and Ilan Kolet, Bloomberg

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    January 06, 2020 —
    The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) 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