BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

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

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    The Future of Airport Infrastructure in a Post-Pandemic World

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

    The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

    Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    Exploring Architects’ Perspectives on AI: A Survey of Fears and Hopes

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    No Entitlement to Reimbursement of Pre-Tender Fees

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    Lewis Brisbois Listed on Leopard Solutions Top 10 Law Firm Index

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Governmental Immunity Waived for Independent Contractor - Lopez v. City of Grand Junction

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

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

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    Constructing a New American Dream
    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. Drawing 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

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    October 07, 2019 —
    Success in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation. The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process. Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case. Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman and Michael I. Frankel Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at gallagherr@pepperlaw.com Ms. Lehman may be contacted at lehmanj@pepperlaw.com Mr. Frankel may be contacted at frankelm@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Specialist Joins Kansas City Firm

    January 13, 2014 —
    David Schatz, whose practice specializes in construction disputes and defects, has joined the Kansas City, Missouri firm Spencer Fane Britt & Brown LLP in their litigation practice group. Mr. Schatz’s expertise also includes banking and finance, banking litigation, commercial disputes, insurance, surety, employment, contract claims, and personal injury. Pat Whalen, Chairman of Spencer Fane Britt & Brown, said that Schatz “brings great experience across a range of industries, but many of us in Kansas City are particularly pleased by his construction and general litigation credentials, which will fit will with the resources we’re building in those areas.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    November 20, 2013 —
    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has named Grace V. B. Garcia one of its 2013 Top Women of the Law. She is an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP in Boston, and her practice focuses on construction law, product liability, premises liability, commercial litigation, and American with Disability Act cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    February 15, 2018 —
    If you are reading this blog, my guess is that you know what excavation is and why it is important to the construction process. However, what you may not know is the complicated California law that governs this process. The statute for an excavation contractor to be familiar with is California Government Code section 4216, et seq. However, like most things worth pursuing, that is easier said than done. Section 4216 contains several layers of prerequisites and requirements. This article will explore the notice requirement. Section 4216.1 requires “every operator of a subsurface installation” to share costs of a regional notification center. This is necessary because Section 4216.2(b) requires “an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the excavator’s intent to excavate” before beginning that excavation. The statute lists two regional notification centers: the Underground Service Alert—Northern California and the Under Ground Service Alert—Southern California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Peng, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Peng may be contacted at mpeng@grsm.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    October 02, 2023 —
    Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce? You can even hold the service… or at least proof of it! In a dispute over the construction of a Burger King restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi, a state court suit by the owner against its general contractor and architect was removed to federal court by one of the defendant parties, on the basis of the diversity of citizenship of the defendant parties from the plaintiff, per 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). For its part, plaintiff, upon achieving service of its state court complaint against the various defendants, filed a proof of service as to the party which sought to remove the case, but not as to the other defendants (even though the other defendants were served). Once the case was removed to federal court and after the deadline for removal has passed, plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded based on the lack of the consent of the entirety of the defendant group to the removal, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”). 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

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    December 30, 2015 —
    As a new year begins, Construction Defect Journal has put together the most important issues and topics relating to the construction defect industry in 2015. New cases have arisen to challenge Right to Repair laws and other construction-related claim procedures, some states have made legislative or code changes, as well as other intriguing topics have been discussed in board rooms and over conference calls. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2015, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    November 30, 2016 —
    Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.
      Provision: Warranty Provisions
    • Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
    • What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
    • What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com