BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/2/24) – Increase in Commercial Property Vacancy Rates, Trouble for the Real Estate Market and Real Estate as a Long-Term Investment

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

    Outcry Over Peru’s Vast Graft Probe Prompts Top Lawyer to Quit

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers

    Super Lawyers Recognized Five Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Actual Cost Value Includes Depreciation of Repair Labor Costs

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

    National Infrastructure Leaders Visit Dallas' Able Pump Station to Tout Benefits of Water Infrastructure Investment

    UPDATE: Trade Secrets Pact Allows Resumed Work on $2.6B Ga. Battery Plant

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/18/24) – Cannabis’ Effect on Real Estate, AI’s Capabilities for Fund Managers and CRE’s Exposure on Large Banks

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More
    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

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    June 04, 2024 —
    Reaching the Incan citadel of Machu Picchu is historically famous for its difficulty. The site’s remote location was a factor in the Spanish conquistadors overlooking it as they swept Peru for its riches. Archaeologist and politician Hiram Bingham had been seeking another “lost” Incan city when he happened across it in 1911. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    June 21, 2017 —
    INTRODUCTION “Developer transition” is the process by which the governance of a condominium association is transferred from developer to unit owner control. This article provides a brief overview of the legal requirements that govern the developer transition process for Maryland condominiums. This article also as well as a “transition checklist” for transitioning unit owner-controlled boards of directors. PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL A developer initially controls an association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium community. As such, the developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the condominium association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the developer makes all decisions on behalf of the association. The developer also creates an association’s governing documents, allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors will eventually be transferred to the homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    September 17, 2014 —
    A study that found natural gas drilling polluted drinking water is fueling calls for stricter standards for well construction that could increase costs for energy companies. The analysis by academic researchers backed the oil and gas industry in one respect: the authors said “fracking” wasn’t to blame for harmful methane seeping into groundwater studied in Texas and Pennsylvania. Some environmentalists contend that by blasting underground rock with a mix of water, chemicals and sand, producers can force the gas into drinking water near the surface. The bigger concern, according to the analysis published yesterday by the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are leaks in the steel-and-cement casings surrounding the well bore. They let gas escape before it gets to the surface, making water undrinkable and in some cases explosive. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists Jim Snyder, Jim Polson and Bradley Olson Mr. Snyder may be contacted at jsnyder24@bloomberg.net; Mr. Polson may be contacted at jpolson@bloomberg.net; Mr. Olson may be contacted at bradleyolson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

    November 13, 2023 —
    In a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential. The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided: Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    August 07, 2018 —
    Have you entered into a subcontract that requires you to arbitrate disputes? If so, does the arbitration provision require you to arbitrate your dispute outside of Florida? If so, the case of Sachse Construction and Development Corp. v. Affirmed Drywall, Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1622e (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) applies and reinforces the notion: Read and consider what you sign! In Sachse Construction, a drywall subcontractor entered into a subcontract for a construction project in Miami with an arbitration provision. The subcontract provided that it shall be construed in accordance with Michigan law and required that arbitration shall take pace in Michigan per the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    January 20, 2020 —
    In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    August 04, 2015 —
    The question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer. In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Salgado may be contacted at salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    February 26, 2015 —
    Earlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects. The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty. “Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.” Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of