BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    My Top 5 Innovations for Greater Efficiency, Sustainability & Quality

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building

    More on the VCPA and Construction

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Reinventing the Building Envelope – Interview with Gordon A Geddes

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks
    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

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    December 08, 2016 —
    Bound by Pennsylvania law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for defects in the installation of a roof. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kim's Asia Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016). Kim's Asia Construction contracted to remove and dispose of Powerline Imports, Inc.'s roof, and then install a new roof. After completion of the project, Powerline sued, alleging that Kim's Asia's negligent construction of the roof caused the roof to leak, even in minor rain storms. Kim's Asia made additional repairs, but the leaks continued. Powerline had to hire a new contractor to remove and dispose of the roof and install another roof. Powerline then sued Kim's Asia. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    July 02, 2014 —
    SmartThings, a U.S. start-up company, “has built a first-of-its-kind platform that allows the objects in your home–doors, locks, lightbulbs, even sprinkler systems–to talk to one another and prioritize your needs,” according to Time. The only requirements are a smartphone and a $200 starter kit. Alex Hawkinson created SmartThings after he returned from a family vacation and discovered that pipes had burst, resulting in a $100,000 repair bill: “How is it possible that someone hasn’t created something I could plug in that would alert me when something went wrong?” Hawkinson commented to Time. SmartThings got its start through Kickstarter (Ashton Kutcher was one of the investors), but is now a General Electric partner. Time reported that there are “legitimate fears of cybercriminals commandeering your smart locks and cameras [that] have made people wary of making their homes potentially hackable.” Hawkinson stated that SmartThings has hired “white-hat hackers to continuously probe SmartThings’ technology and pinpoint vulnerabilities that must be fixed.” “We’re at the outset of this wave where … your home can give you security, peace of mind and more,” Hawkinson told Time. “Eventually, everything that should be connected will be connected.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

    March 04, 2024 —
    Beginning January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act to mirror the Federal Rules and require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act, specifically C.C.P. section 2016.090, to affirmatively require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In an effort to reflect the Federal Rule 26 disclosure requirements, as many other States have adopted, California will now also mandate (upon demand) that a party produce evidence without an arduous and possibly duplicative effort. In other words, this initial disclosure will require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    November 01, 2021 —
    For centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed. From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    November 06, 2013 —
    From the time a home is built, California starts a ten-year countdown, which Alan I. Schimmel, writing at California Lawyer, notes is not a statute of limitations, but a statute of repose. During that time, homeowners might be able file a claim over construction defects that don’t immediately become evident. After that ten-year limit, “any latent defects they discover would have to be corrected using money from their own pockets.” The readily observable defects, the patent defects, have a four-year limit. Mr. Schimmel focusses on latent defects, “which generally lurk behind walls or underground.” He also notes that “they may cause catastrophic damage before they are even detected.” If a construction defect is found, the “law requires the owner of a single-family residence to notify the builder in writing of the claimed defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    March 11, 2024 —
    Ursinus University in Pennsylvania – a “private, nonprofit liberal arts college” – funded a construction project for a new building utilizing monies loaned by the Montgomery County Health and Higher Education Authority, a public economic development authority “formed by the Board of County Commissioners… authorized to issue bonds relative to projects for eligible educational institution such as Ursinus.” Loans up to the amount of $23,000,000 became available to the University, and construction proceeded using the loans as construction funds. At issue: whether a project was to be considered publicly funded project such that prevailing wage rates were required to be paid. IBEW filed a related grievance with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Bureau of Labor Law Compliance, which was refused by the Bureau, on the basis that because work was “financed completely by loans from the Authority, which Ursinus was required to repay in their entirety, the Project was ultimately funded through private sources and exempt from coverage under the [Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act].” A grievance to the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board ensued, and the Board took a different position. 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

    The Risk of A Fixed Price Contract Is The Market

    August 03, 2022 —
    When performing work on a fixed price or unit, there is risk that is being assumed on your end. One risk is the market. You are ultimately banking on the fact that the market is not going to make your fixed prices unprofitable. That’s not an unforeseeable occurrence because the market shifts and that shift can have a negative ripple effect. In a recent case out of the Federal Circuit, U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 243176 (Fed.Cir. 2022), this market risk played a role in a fixed price contract. Here, a contractor was hired by the federal government to produce ground support trailers. A key component of these trailers was a running gear. The contractor relied on a vendor for these running gears. Due to financial difficulties, the vendor had to raise its unit price for the running gears. Based on the increased price, the contractor elected to manufacture the running gears itself. The contractor asked the government if this was ok and the government approved the request. Once the contractor started manufacturing these running gears, it had an “awe” moment – the manufacturing costs were higher than anticipated. The contractor submitted a request for equitable adjustment which the government denied. The Contractor than sued the government raising three arguments to support its entitlement to additional costs: (1) constructive change; (2) cardinal change; and (3) commercial impracticability. The contractor lost on all arguments. It probably should have lost on all arguments. 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

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    October 07, 2016 —
    As a general contractor, you understand the importance of being named an additional insured under your subcontractors’ commercial general liability (CGL) policies. Not only do you want your subcontract to express that a subcontractor’s CGL policy is primary and noncontributory to your policy, but you want it to express that the subcontractor must identify you as an additional insured for ongoing and completed operations. Even with this language, you want the subcontractor to provide you with their additional insured endorsement and, preferably, a primary and noncontributory endorsement. These additional insured obligations are important to any general contractor that has been sued in a construction defect / property damage lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com