BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction 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


    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    New Proposed Regulations Expand CFIUS Jurisdiction Regarding Real Estate

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    GRSM Named Among 2025 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

    Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    Florida Death Toll Rises by Three, Reaching 27 as Search Resumes

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs
    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

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    July 14, 2016 —
    Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (12/07/22) – Home Sales, EV Charging Infrastructure, and Office Occupancy

    December 26, 2022 —
    This week’s round-up explores decreasing home sales, electric vehicle charging stations, office occupancy levels, and more.
    • With home sales dropping and more buyers abandoning their plans, forecasters have rarely disagreed as much as they are now regarding where the housing market is going next. (Nicole Friedman, Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal)
    • Contractors and construction technology firms are watching as skilled workers look for new jobs in a turbulent economy. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
    • The ability to conveniently charge electric vehicles away from home is a top concern for many owners, indicating the strong need for an extensive and reliable external charging infrastructure. (Robert Charette, IEEE Spectrum)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    March 02, 2020 —
    Private and public companies spend billions of dollars every year on construction projects. For these projects, time is money, and incorporating the most advantageous legal terms in the construction contract can minimize the number and extent of disputes, and ultimately save money. It is important to remember that the provisions in construction contracts are negotiable. In a common scenario, the contractor and owner informally agree to the scope of a construction project and its cost. When it is time to reduce the deal to writing, the contractor and owner decide to use an AIA contract that appears to be a standard form. The document looks to be on point, and the parties simply need to fill in a few blanks with the cost and scope-specific information. Presuming that the AIA provisions are mutually protective and beneficial, the parties do not think about altering the “standard” terms. They sign the contract, and the project begins. Months later, the owner and contractor end up disputing delays on the project, entitlement to various payments, and whether certain aspects of the work are defective. At this point, the parties realize that some of the contract’s terms could have been drafted a bit more favorably—but by that time it’s too late. So remember, construction contracts are negotiable, even provisions within “standard” AIA contracts. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. and Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Sampson may be contacted at phillip.sampson@bracewell.com. Mr. Whiteley may be contacted at richard.whiteley@bracewell.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    September 17, 2018 —
    I have spoken often about mechanic’s liens and the implications of such liens as they relate to bankruptcy here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Loudoun County, Virginia added another wrinkle to this discussion, that of standing and what happens on conveyance of the property and what interest in the property is required to allow a party to seek removal of the mechanic’s lien. In Leesburg Bldg. P’rs LLC v. Mike Berger Inc. the Loudoun County Circuit Court faced the following scenario. Leesburg Building Partners developed certain condominiums and hired Lansdowne Construction to perform the work as general contractor and paid Landsdowne in full for the work. Lansdowne hired Mike Berger, Inc. (“MBI”) to perform concrete work for the project. Landsdowne didn’t pay MBI approximately $48,000.00 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. MBI, seeking to protect it’s interest in the money it was owed, recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property. Leesburg Building Partners filed an action to declare the lien invalid and have it removed from the property based upon its “payment defense” and the fact that it had paid Landsdowne in full. A relatively simple scenario and one that has been discussed before here at Musings. Not so fast. . . Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    September 28, 2017 —
    If you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market. BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    February 07, 2013 —
    There are some benefits to living in small developments with correspondingly small community association. Marilyn Briscoe told the Chicago Tribune that in her 34-unit town home association, "people kind of look out for each other here." But the article also cautions to not only meet the other owners, but that you should "know the developer" and "be leery if you discover litigation for construction defects." Ryan Shpritz, an association attorney said that "you don't want to start out your new association by spending money on lawyer fees or repairing defects." Whether the development is large or small, "having construction defect litigation going on will have an impact on salability." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    January 27, 2020 —
    Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    December 11, 2018 —
    Does a CGL policy cover attorney’s fees and costs in property damages claims, to the extent there is a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees? Naturally, you need to review the policies and this is not a clear-cut issue, but there is law to argue under. A case I have argued in support of CGL policies providing for coverage for attorney’s fees as a component of property damage claims when there is a contractual or statutory basis is Assurance Co. of America v. Lucas Waterproofing Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp.2d 1201 (S.D.Fla. 2008). In this case, the following applied:
    • The policy provided coverage for “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages of… ‘property damage’….
    • Property damage was defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.”
    • The term damage, in of itself, was not defined in the policy.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com