BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    Why A Jury Found That Contractor 'Retaliated' Against Undocumented Craft Worker

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    How to Build a Water-Smart City

    Break out the Neon: ‘80s Era Davis-Bacon “Prevailing Wage” Definition Restored in DOL Final Rule

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    How the Parking Garage Conquered the City

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Surviving the Construction Law Backlog: Nontraditional Approaches to Resolution

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?
    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

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    December 30, 2019 —
    The National Transportation Safety Board’s Oct. 8 release of documents related to its FIU bridge collapse investigation raises questions but provides no definitive conclusions about why the partially built structure suddenly crashed to the ground on March 15, 2018, killing six. The last official word on the cause of the fatal collapse will have to await the agency’s final report, scheduled to be released on Oct. 22. Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    September 17, 2014 —
    A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
    Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    April 03, 2023 —
    The three key measures of a construction project’s success are cost, quality, and time (delays). The project delivery method that the owner of the project selects can affect each of these metrics. Project delivery methods in complex construction projects evolve as technology and processes improve. The traditional methods of design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction management (CM) have been the standard for many years. More recently, however, newer methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD), and public-private partnerships (PPP) have gained traction. Design – Bid – Build (DBB) Design-bid-build is the oldest, most commonly used method of project delivery. It involves three distinct phases: design, bid/award, and construction. An owner asks a team of professionals, such as architects, engineers, and contractors, to produce design documents that will be used to solicit bids. After the owner evaluates the bids and chooses a contractor, a construction contract is written. While this method is the most familiar and well-understood, it can lead to disputes during the construction process as changes are made to the original plans. In DBB, the owner bears the risk for funding increased costs attributed to design changes and related delays – thanks to the Spearin Doctrine, which holds that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans, and specifications that it provides to a general contractor. See 248 U.S. 132 (1918) Although the owner cannot claim against the contractor, it can make a claim against the design firm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    July 27, 2020 —
    In the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:
    1. 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
    2. 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
    3. 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
    4. 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
    5. 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
    6. 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
    7. 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
    8. 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
    9. 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
    10. 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark

    March 16, 2017 —
    In John Trimble, et al. v. City of Albany, et al., 2016, 144 A.D.3d 1484; 42 N.Y.S. 3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, addressed the issue of governmental immunity for municipal fire companies. The court held that the plaintiff, John Trimble (Trimble), had sufficient evidence related to the four-pronged test for establishing a “special relationship” between a municipality and a citizen for liability to attach. In addition, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of governmental immunity. Specifically, regarding the latter holding, the court stated that, when there is no actual choice made on the part of the government, the government’s actions cannot be considered discretionary and immunity will not apply. In the case at hand, a fire occurred at Trimble’s home on the evening of February 2, 2013. Trimble called 911 and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services for the City of Albany (the Department) responded. After extinguishing the fire, the Department conducted an investigation and cleared the home. The Department’s investigators then told Trimble that the fire was extinguished and it was safe to enter the home. Trimble did so, removing some items so that he could stay with relatives that night. Several hours later, there was a rekindle and the rekindled fire destroyed the home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

    September 23, 2024 —
    On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists. Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    February 18, 2015 —
    The Miami Herald reported that “demolition workers used an Old West method on Tuesday to finish an incomplete casino implosion in Las Vegas.” The Clarion Hotel and Casino owner Lorenzo Doumani told the Miami Herald that “[t]hey lassoed the building with steel cables, got a crane, and pulled and pulled and pulled.” Burke Construction used a 2-ton explosive punch to bring the structure down, however, the concrete building dropped four stories but remained upright. Burke Construction’s corporate safety coordinator, Anthony Schlect, told the Miami Herald that he was investigating the incident. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    May 07, 2015 —
    California has a number of statutory payment remedies available on construction projects. Some, such as the mechanics lien, are relatively well known and often utilized. Others, such as the stop payment notice, are somewhat less so. However, there’s one statutory payment remedy you may not have heard of at all. And that is, security requirements for large projects. What is security for large projects? Security is required on certain large construction projects to guarantee the payment by owners to direct contractors, and applies if either: 1. Fee Interest and Contract of Greater Than $5 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds a fee interest in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than $5 million; or 2. Less Than Fee Interest, Including Leasehold Interest, and Contract of Greater Than $1 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds less than a fee interest (including a leasehold interest) in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than $1 million. 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