BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    A Construction Stitch in Time

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

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

    NTSB Outlines Pittsburgh Bridge Structure Specifics, Finding Collapse Cause Will Take Months

    Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

    What Is the Best Way to Avoid Rezoning Disputes?

    Dave McLain named Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants for 2019

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    White and Williams Celebrates Chambers 2024 Rankings

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    On to Year Thirteen for Blog

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles
    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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    October 24, 2023 —
    A contractor for a hotel in Seattle was tasked with constructing the hotel utilizing premanufactured modular hotel rooms. The modular unit portion of the project was the subject of a $15.8 million subcontract between the general contractor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also responsible to the GC for shipping and installing the modular units. Shipping was to be “DDP,” or “Delivery Duty Paid” – which, according to a New York federal court, “is an international shipping term meaning that the seller assumes all responsibilities and costs for delivering property to the named place of destination, including export and import clearance, fees, duties, and taxes.” Additionally, per the subcontract, the manufacturer was responsible for “ensur[ing] all modular units [were] covered, secured[,] and protected from damage during the shipping process….” The modular units were shipped from Poland to Seattle. In the shipping process, the units spent some time in the Port of Everett in Washington state, where the units sustained water damage while sitting in port. A related damage claim made by the subcontractor against the general contractor’s builder’s risk policy. On the face of the policy, the policy covered subcontractors as “additional insured” parties, covered all manner of materials and the like to be used on the project, and would provide that coverage in the process of transporting the materials insofar as “inland or coastal waters” were concerned. Yet, the builder’s risk insurer refused to cover the claim for the damages to the modular units which occurred while sitting in port in Everett. 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

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    May 31, 2021 —
    The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    March 27, 2019 —
    I have discussed the Hensel Phelps case and the potential issues caused by both poorly drafted indemnity clauses and the lack of a statute of limitations applicable to the Commonwealth of Virginia and its agencies in 2017. New legislation (supported by various contractor groups including my friends at the AGC of Virginia) has been proposed for the 2019 General Assembly session that seeks to address at least part of this issue. While the indemnity provisions of your construction contracts can be addressed by careful drafting with the help of an experienced construction attorney, the proposed legislation (found in HB1667) seeks to address the statute of limitations issue. The proposed legislation is described as follows:
    Provides that no action may be brought by a public body on any construction contract, including construction management and design-build contracts, unless such action is brought within five years after substantial completion of the work on the project and that no action may be brought by a public body on a warranty or guarantee in such construction contract more than one year from the breach of that warranty, but in no event more than one year after the expiration of such warranty or guarantee. The bill also limits the time frame during which a public body, other than the Department of Transportation, may bring an action against a surety on a performance bond to within one year after substantial completion of the work on the project.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    January 07, 2015 —
    Indemnity obligations and additional insured coverage were at issue in Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3347 (N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014). Strauss Painting, Inc. (Strauss) contracted with the Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (the Met) to strip and repaint the rooftop steel carriage track for the opera house's automated window-washing equipment. The contract provided that Strauss would indemnify and hold the Met harmless. Exhibit D to the contract set forth three types of insurance that Strauss was to procure: (1) workers' compensation; (2) owners and contractors protective liability (OCP); and (3) comprehensive general liability. The OCP policy was to add the Met as an additional insured. Strauss failed to obtain the OCP policy. At the time it contracted with the Met, Strauss had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. The policy's additional insured endorsement (ICO form CG 20 33 07 04) stated that "an insured" included "any organization for whom Strauss is performing operations when Strauss and such organization have agreed in writing that such organization be added as an additional insured." 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

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    October 01, 2014 —
    Riadh Ben Aissa, a former SNC-Lavalin executive, “pleaded guilty to charges including bribery and money laundering in Switzerland, according to a court filing released on Wednesday,” reported the Wall Street Journal. SNC-Lavalin “issued a separate statement acknowledging the court's acceptance of Mr. Ben Aissa's guilty pleas, adding it was recognized as ‘an injured party’ in the case and would recover an unspecified amount of money from him.” Chief Executive Robert Card stated, “SNC-Lavalin's goal is nothing less than to set a new standard for clean business in the engineering and construction industry,” as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “We've adopted a zero-tolerance policy for ethics violations of any kind. We have the right people in place and systems and procedures which are designed to protect the company and its stakeholders from future fraudulent actions." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    January 11, 2021 —
    We are 10 months into the global pandemic. Given the magnitude of additional costs and upended expectations and risk-allocation, we foresee a wave of disputes coming soon. Whether it is large or small depends heavily on how well project team members handle the COVID-19 project impacts now. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring (ENR) and Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring (ENR) Ms. Bachman may be contacted at mbachman@crowell.com Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at joshlindsay@crowell.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    July 05, 2011 —

    The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).

    Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.

    The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.

    Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    July 30, 2019 —
    In February 2019, the results of the third Annual Georgia Construction Outlook Survey were released. The survey respondents includes general contractors (44%), specialty contractors (53%) and heavy contractors (3%) with gross revenue size that ranged from in excess of $1 billion to less than $5 million. Three-quarters of respondents reported revenues of less than $25 million. Here’s what they had to say about the state of construction in Georgia. Financial Performance and 2019 Outlook It was no surprise to see the majority of respondents reporting increased revenues and margins in 2018. Average gross margins from all respondents increased to 11.3%, up from 9.33% in the prior year. Overall, 72% of respondents saw their gross margins increase and/or remain the same. The largest decrease in margins was seen in the heavy contractor sector, with 33% of respondents reporting a decrease in margins. When it comes to backlog, Georgia is seeing a record number of months in the pipeline and 57% of respondents reported higher backlogs than in the previous year. The increase in backlog helps explain why 84% of respondents are expecting increase in revenues in 2019 over 2018. Interestingly, of those expecting increase in revenue, 40% are anticipating an increase of more than 10% from the prior year. So, the overall financial health of Georgia contractors looks to remain strong at least through 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hazy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Hazy may be contacted at scott.hazy@btcpa.net