BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer 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


    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    The Heat Is On

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/26/24) – Construction Growth in Office and Data Center Sectors, Slight Ease in Consumer Price Index and Increased Premiums for Commercial Buildings

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

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

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    CCPA Class Action Lawsuits Are Coming. Are You Ready?

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

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

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent
    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

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    July 25, 2022 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Theresa Mallen recently achieved a major victory in binding Arbitration. The subject action involved a construction project in the backyard of homeowner’s residence. Homeowner maintained that BWB&O’s contractor client abandoned the project. Furthermore, homeowner alleged that the work performed by BWB&O’s client was deficient. The primary construction defect claim is that the pool deck is not properly sloped which is preventing surface water from running off the top of the retaining wall as designed. The Arbitrator ultimately sided with BWB&O’s client finding that BWB&O’s client did not abandon the project, but rather was terminated by homeowner. Additionally, BWB&O successfully proved that despite the fact that the three pertinent elevations that determine the slope of the concrete pool slab were pre-established before BWB&O’s client even got on the project, that BWB&O’s client properly installed the concrete pool slab and would have established the necessary slope of the pool deck had it not been terminated from the project. Homeowner asserted many other secondary construction defect claims and the Arbitrator found in BWB&O’s client’s favor on each and every issue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court has rejected arguments made by Dewey Beach homeowners over the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court which had dismissed the complaint as it was filed more than 60 days after exception to the zoning rules had been voted on. A builder had been granted leave to build higher than thirty-five feet in exchange for public space, public restrooms, and other amenities for the public. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

    July 11, 2021 —
    On June 17, 2021, California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) passed amended COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order to make the amended ETS effective as soon as filed with the Secretary of State. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) filed them, and the Secretary of State posted them, making the ETS effective immediately. These changes attempt to bring the ETS in alignment with recent changes to California Department of Public Health Order and the latest guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Highlights of the changes to the ETS can be found here. Face Coverings in the Workplace; Elimination of Physical Distancing Notably, fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a face covering indoors except in limited circumstances. Unvaccinated workers will still need to wear face coverings indoors (unless they are alone in a room or eating and drinking) and in shared vehicles. All employees regardless of vaccination status do not have to wear masks outdoors. Unvaccinated employees must be trained that face coverings are recommended outdoors for individuals who are not fully vaccinated when six feet of physical distance cannot be maintained. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Leila S. Narvid, Payne & Fears LLP
    Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    August 20, 2018 —
    Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on June 27 that wrapped the court’s current case calendar addressed labor relations and water rights issues with construction sector impact. Its 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector employees can’t be forced to pay “fair-share fees” to unions could affect industry professionals represented by labor groups in 22 states. Reprinted courtesy of ENR journalists Jeff Yoders, Pam Radtke Russell, JT Long and Debra K. Rubin Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Ms. Debra may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

    June 04, 2024 —
    Introduction Most, if not all, construction contracts contain a provision for “retainage.” The origin and concept of retainage dates back to the railroad boom that embraced Great Britain in the 1840s. In its simplest terms, retainage is a mechanism by which an owner or general contractor withholds disbursement of funds from the payment of a requisition in order to secure future performance of a contract and/or to pay for repair of defectively performed work. Retainage typically ranges from five to ten percent, with the amount being reduced as the project progresses to substantial and final completion. One of the reasons for withholding retainage is to incentivize a contractor to complete its work in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. While this may be well-intentioned in concept, it all too often leads to abuse that impacts project cash flow and raises tension between the parties. This typically happens on projects that have delay issues, deficient drawings, and/or claims of defective work. When a project has “gone bad,” the withholding of retainage is one of the first things that an owner will latch onto in order to leverage its position against a contractor. In order for a contractor to put itself in the best position possible, the following negotiation techniques and protective measures should be kept in mind. Know Your Applicable Statute Every state except West Virginia has statutes in place that govern the payment of retainage on public projects. On federal projects, the amount of retainage withheld shall not exceed ten percent as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”). The common thread running through these statutes is the payment of interest as a remedy when the retainage is not timely paid. Historically, most retainage statutes were applicable only to publicly funded projects. This has recently changed with a substantial number of state legislatures recognizing that the payment of retainage on private projects was a serious enough problem to warrant regulation. These include Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. New York’s retainage laws relating to private projects were enacted only this past November. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson
    Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    May 06, 2019 —
    On March 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued two separate rulings that reversed and set aside energy and environmental decisions made by the current administration, which had revoked decisions made in these same matters by the prior administration. The cases are League of Conservation Voters, et al., v. Trump (concerning the development of oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)) and Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, et al., v. Bernhardt, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (which concerns a Land Exchange that would facilitate the construction of a road between two remote Alaska communities when that road would traverse parts of a designated national wilderness). In the League of Conservation Voters matter, the District Court held that the President’s Executive Order 13795 (released on April 28, 2017), which purported to revoke President Obama’s decisions to withdraw certain OCS tracts from oil and gas exploration and development, was unlawful because it was not authorized by Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In 2015 and 2016, President Obama issued Presidential Memorandums and an Executive Order withdrawing these particular tracts. 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

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    July 16, 2014 —
    Katie Graham is living large. Just in a small apartment. She moved into the new ParkCentral tower in Nashville, Tennessee, for its gym, rooftop deck with heated pool, and the bars and restaurants in the neighborhood below. She didn’t mind the size of the 562-square-foot (52-square-meter) studio. “I just wanted to be in a good area and wanted good amenities, so I wasn’t looking for something huge,” said Graham, 25, who relocated from her hometown in Jackson, Tennessee, two hours away. “I’m by myself and don’t need all that. The bigger the area, the more furniture you have to buy.” Young professionals are paying top-market rents to live in new upscale apartment towers sprouting in Nashville and other downtowns across the country. They’re sacrificing living space for a prime urban location and extras such as cooking classes, dog-wash stations and poolside Wi-Fi. Developers, in the biggest U.S. apartment-construction boom in almost a decade, are shrinking the size of units so they can command luxury rates without narrowing the pool of potential tenants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    July 19, 2021 —
    Oftentimes an occurrence in a commercial general liability policy is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” It is this occurrence that causes the bodily injury or property damage that may be covered by the policy. An interesting non-construction case determined an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy occurred when the negligent act occurred irrespective of the date of discovery or the date the claim was discovered or asserted. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. J046137 v. Pierson, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1288c (Fla. 4thDCA 2021). This is interesting because the appellate court did NOT apply a “trigger theory” to first determine the occurrence’s policy period. The appellate court found it did not need to determine which “trigger theory” applied to determine the occurrence for the injury and relied on a cited case: “trigger theories are generally used in the context of deciding when damage occurred ‘in cases involving progressive damages, such as latent defects, toxic spills, and asbestosis’ because the time between the ‘injury-causing event (such as defective construction, a fuel leak, or exposure to asbestos), the injury itself, and the injury’s discovery or manifestation can be so far apart.” Pierson, supra, citing and quoting Spartan Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1998). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com