BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

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

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    ASCE Statement On White House "Accelerating Infrastructure Summit"

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

    South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    More Broad-Based Expansion for Construction Industry Expected in 2015

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Indemnity Provision Prevails Over "Other Insurance" Clause

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

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

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    From ‘Cuckoo’s Egg’ to Today’s Cyber Threat Landscape

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

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

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

    Plans Go High Tech

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC
    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

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    December 20, 2017 —
    In California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090. Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    November 30, 2020 —
    Force majeure clauses have been standard in contracts dating back hundreds of years in the United States—and even longer in Europe. “Force majeure,” which is French for “greater force,” removes liability for unforeseen events that prevent parties from fulfilling contractual obligations. In a year defined by the COVID-19 pandemic, these clauses have gone from boilerplate basics to something worthy of further examination and attention in order to minimize risk for all parties involved in a construction project. Prior to COVID-19, drafters might have considered a localized or regional event that would lead to invoking a force majeure clause. It is doubtful, however, that anybody envisioned the impact on such a world-wide scale. UNDERSTANDING THE AGREEMENTS Force majeure clauses cover unforeseen events, a broad term that encompasses both acts of God and human-caused incidents. These range from natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes to acts of terrorism, strikes, political strife, government actions, war and other difficult- or impossible-to-predict disruptions. When such an event occurs, the force majeure clause attempts to remove, or at least reduce, uncertainty as to the rights and liabilities of the parties to the agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Michael E. Carson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Carson may be contacted at michael.carson@nationwide.com

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    October 07, 2019 —
    Following a partial crane collapse at a site on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and a fatality in April on a jobsite in lower Manhattan, the New York City Dept. of Buildings announced on Aug. 12 that it is suspending United Crane & Rigging’s work on 21 construction sites across the city. Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    October 02, 2013 —
    The school district in the Chicago-area town of Lake Zurich has made last settlement in a construction defect lawsuit. The $80,000 settlement from Terra Group of Chicago brings the total settlement with the Community Unit School District 95 to about $1.9 million. Other firms included Bovis Lend Lease, Legat Architects, Larson Engineering, and Illinois Masonry Corporation. The school district had contracted for work on several schools in the district. The buildings opened in 2004, with defect claims made in 2007. Defect claims included the failure of a retaining wall and need for reinforcement of stairwells. The settlement with Terra Group was made under the agreement that it was a compromise with no concession of liability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    January 13, 2014 —
    The new Staten Island Courthouse received another setback when James McDonough filed suit stating unsafe work conditions, according to Frank Donnelly writing for Silive. The completion date for the new multistory, $230 million complex has been rescheduled four times so far. Fifty-eight year old James McDonough, resident of Ridgewood Queens, became injured after a fall down a shaft, and he subsequently “sued the city, state Dormitory Authority, the state Office of Court Administration and various contractors,” Donnelly reported. A total of ten defendants have been named in the suit. According to Silive, the Office of Court Administration, Dormitory Authority and the Law Department would not comment on the pending litigation further except to say that papers have been filed and the case is under review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

    September 20, 2021 —
    During the global pandemic the construction industry saw unprecedented inflation in the cost of building supplies as a result of a myriad of issues. On May 7, 2021, lumber prices hit a record high at $1,670.50 per thousand board feet. This was more than six times their pandemic low in April 2020. This significant price spike was related to closure of sawmills during the height of the pandemic, low supply, soaring demand to expand existing homes or purchase new construction, the western U.S. wildfires and tariffs. More recently, lumber prices have fallen but they are still up nearly 100% from spring 2020. Some experts believe that the recent wildfires in the western United States and upcoming hurricane season will cause prices to jump back up in the upcoming months. Additionally, since March 2020, steel prices are up roughly 200%. The increase in steel prices is a result of many of the same factors causing lumber pricing spikes. Many steel mills shut down production or drastically reduced production during the early days of the pandemic expecting a deep recession and/or to comply with restrictive government mandates. Despite these industry expectations, demand for steel -elated products like grills and home appliances soared. These household demands for steel-based products impacted the price of steel for construction projects. Prior to the pandemic, hot-rolled steel traded between $500 and 800 per ton but hit an all-time high of $1,825 per ton in early July 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Nick Stewart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Stewart may be contacted at nstewart@turnerpadget.com

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    August 20, 2018 —
    Earlier this summer, in Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Castlewood Builders LLC, 2018 UT 28, the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the question of whether the plaintiff’s construction defects claims against the general contractor for a construction project were timely-filed, or barred by the statute of repose. In Utah, the statute of repose requires that an action be “commenced within six years of the date of completion.” The plaintiff alleged that its 2014 amended complaint naming the general contractor as a defendant was timely-commenced because, before the date on which Utah’s statute of repose ran, a defendant filed a motion to amend its third-party complaint to name the general contractor as a defendant, and the defendant subsequently assigned its claims to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the filing of its 2014 amended complaint related back[1] to the date of its original complaint. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an action is “commenced” by filing a complaint and that a motion for leave to amend does not count as “commencing” an action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com