BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    Affirmed

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

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

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

    Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

    New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    The Power of Team Bonding: Transforming Workplaces for the Better

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

    GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere
    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

    Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

    July 27, 2020 —
    In Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. A155691, filed 5/22/20 ord. pub. 6/8/20), a California appeals court held that triable issues of fact and the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the genuine dispute doctrine. In Fadeeff, the policyholders made a claim to State Farm for smoke damage to their home from the 2015 Valley Fire in Hidden Valley Lake, California. With State Farm’s approval, the insureds retained the restoration company, ServPro, to assist with smoke and soot mitigation. State Farm documented smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on all exterior elevations, including on the deck and handrail. State Farm made a series of payments on the claim totaling about $50,000. The insureds then hired a public adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for further dwelling repairs and additional contents replacement, totaling approximately $75,000. State Farm responded by using its own independent adjuster to investigate, who was neither licensed as an adjuster, nor as a contractor. State Farm also retained forensic consultants for the structure and the HVAC system, but neither the independent adjuster nor the consultants were aware that State Farm had an internal operation guide for the use of third-party experts in handling first party claims, which guidelines were therefore not followed. In addition, the consultants made allegedly superficial inspections, with one attributing smoke and soot damage to other sources of combustion, including the insureds’ exterior propane barbecue, an internal wood fireplace and wood stove and candles that had been burned in the living room. None of the consultants asked the insureds when they had last used any of the sources of combustion. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    October 02, 2015 —
    Companies stepped up hiring in September, indicating the U.S. job market is standing firm in the face of weaker global demand, according to a private report based on payrolls. A 200,000 increase in employment followed a revised 186,000 rise in the prior month, figures from the ADP Research Institute showed Wednesday. The median projection of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an advance of 190,000. The additions to company headcounts are consistent with resilient demand in the U.S. even as some industries face challenges of weaker overseas sales. Labor Department data on Friday are projected to show payroll gains accelerated this month compared with August. “The U.S. job machine continues to produce jobs at a strong and consistent pace,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said in a statement. Moody’s produces the figures with ADP. “Despite job losses in the energy and manufacturing industries, the economy is creating close to 200,000 jobs per month. At this pace, full employment is fast approaching.” Estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged from gains of 120,000 to 215,000 after a previously reported August advance of 190,000. Goods Producers Goods-producing industries, which include manufacturers and builders, increased headcounts by 12,000, the ADP report showed. Hiring in construction climbed by 35,000, almost twice the 18,000 gain a month earlier. Factories cut 15,000 jobs in September, which was the biggest decline since December 2010. Payrolls at service providers increased by 188,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    November 13, 2013 —
    The streets around the Omni Building in Lubbock, Texas have been barricaded for an indefinite period, since the marble panels have been falling off the building. The panels weight about 300 pounds each. The building’s owners attempted to remedy the problem by replacing the marble with stucco, but that too came loose in the wind and fell to the ground. The city issued a stop work order preventing the installation of any more stucco. The city “told them that all needed to come down, both the old and the new,” according to Steve O’Neil, the city’s chief building official. The city has filed a lawsuit to compel the owners to fix the building. Glen Robertson, Lubbock’s mayor, sees another possible solution, “or demolish it because, as it stands right now, it is truly a health and safety hazard to our citizens. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    October 27, 2016 —
    On several occasions here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the fact that, with a few exceptions, fraud claims and written construction contract based claims do not mix. One of the exceptions to the so called “economic loss rule” that would seem to preclude both fraud and contract claims in the same lawsuit is where fraud is used to induce the contract in the first place. This exception would only apply where an independent duty, wholly outside of the duties created by the contract, is properly plead and proven to the court. For the same reason, namely a separate duty outside of the contract, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) may allow for an exception that would allow a cause of action under this statute. Up until recently, the courts of Virginia have used these exceptions sparingly. However, the recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Interbuild, Inc. v. Sayers (opinion also found at Virginia Lawyers Weekly) may signal a broadening of these exceptions. In the Interbuild case, the Court considered a claim for fraud in the inducement and breach of the VCPA. The basic facts plead by the plaintiffs were that Interbuild induced them into the contract through statements that it had been an es­tablished business since 1981, the project did not require a building permit, it had obtained all necessary subcontractor pric­es and would provide full-time project su­pervision, the project would be completed within 16 weeks, 4000 PSI concrete would be used for the project and that the proj­ect would be located in the agreed-upon area depicted and that they reasonably relied on these representations in deciding to enter into the contract to build their recreational facility. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    September 24, 2014 —
    The court determined that an additional insured was not entitled to coverage despite an exception to the watercraft exclusion. Holden v. U.S. United Ocean Serv., LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15954 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014). United entered a contract with Buck Kreihs Company, Inc. under which Buck Kreihs would perform ship-repair work for United. Under the contract, Buck Kreihs would indemnify United for all liabilities arising out of the work or services performed by Buck Kreihs for United. The contract further provided that Buck Kreihs was to procure general liability coverage and name United as an additional insured. Buck Kreihs did so under a policy issued by St. Paul. Holden, an employee of Buck Kreihs, was injured while preparing to remove a gangway that led from a dock at Buck Kreihs's facility to a barge owned by United. Holden sued United, which tendered to St. Paul as an additional insured. St. Paul denied coverage under the policy's watercraft exclusion. Holden and United settled. United pursued its third party suit against St. Paul. The district court granted summary judgment to St. Paul. 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

    Three Reasons Lean Construction Principles Are Still Valid

    February 27, 2019 —
    When lean principles were first introduced to the construction industry five years ago, project managers raced to implement the production method. The internet was rife with content about how to easily overhaul a jobsite and transform it into the picture of efficiency. However, the number of lean construction critics have multiplied significantly in recent months. They claim concepts are near impossible to implement or, even worse, automation eliminates the need for deliberate human processes. These ideas are misleading. Lean principles are still valid for a few key reasons. 1. Lean involves seeing things from the customer’s point of view One of the defining principles of lean construction is understanding value from the customer’s point of view. The concept encourages stakeholders, including the owner, contractor and supplier, to come together during the early planning stage of the project. The significant level of trust created from this exercise can’t be replicated by machinery. It involves compassion, collaboration and a sense of creativity that artificial intelligence is yet to possess. Moreover, the rapport gained through this service-oriented exercise is worth the time investment. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Clary, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

    October 17, 2023 —
    A settlement agreement is a contract. When parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement, they enter into a contract. Such a contract is subject to the general law governing all contracts. (T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 280 [204 Cal. Rptr. 143, 682 P.2d 338] [offers by a party to compromise under Code Civ. Proc., § 998].) Courts seek to interpret contracts in a manner that will render them “lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect’” without violating the intent of the parties. (Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 241, 272–273; Kaufman v. Goldman, (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 734, 745. A settlement agreement like a contract is a document that is typically negotiated between the parties to the agreement and it is up to the parties to determine its terms. Settlements take time and sometimes negotiating the settlement terms takes longer. This is especially true in complex litigation and multiparty matters where negotiating the settlement terms is just as contentious as litigating the matter. Just like contracts, in a settlement agreement the parties cannot agree to terms that violate public policy. A contract is thought to be against public policy if it results in a breach of law, harms citizens, or causes injury to the state. Contracts that are voided on public policy grounds carry no legal obligations. For example, an employer cannot force an employee to sign a contract that forbids the worker from joining a union. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    February 15, 2018 —
    Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill – The Law Officeof Christopher G. Hill, PC