BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

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

    Quick Note: Notice of Contest of Claim Against Payment Bond

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Climate Disasters Are an Affordable Housing Problem

    Do We Need Blockchain in Construction?

    How to Defend Stucco Allegations

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Protecting Expert Opinions: Lessons Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege and Expert Retention in Construction Litigation

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds
    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

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    December 19, 2018 —
    Encountering an unexpected site condition is one of the more common risks on a construction project. A “differing site condition”, or it is sometimes called a “changed condition”, is generally understood to be a physical condition that is discovered while performing work and that was not visible or otherwise expected at the time of bidding. Often, the condition could not have been discovered by a reasonable site investigation. Examples of common differing site conditions include: soil with inadequate bearing capacity to support the building being constructed, soil that cannot be reused as structural fill, unanticipated groundwater, quicksand, mud, rock formations, or other artificial subsurface obstructions. Differing site conditions may also occur within the walls or ceilings of a renovation project such as the renovation of a hospital or historic building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracey W. Pruiett, Smith Currie
    Ms. Pruiett may be contacted at twpruiett@smithcurrie.com

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    April 17, 2019 —
    Prior to deciding whether to review an important February 1, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision involving the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, et al., v. County of Maui, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for the views of the U.S. on the holdings of this case and the April 12, 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, Upstate Forever, et al., v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al. On February 19, the Supreme Court confirmed that certiorari was granted to Question 1 presented by the Petition,
    Whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater. (33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12)
    In County of Maui , the Ninth Circuit held that indirect discharges to navigable waters through groundwater may be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CWA the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority, and in Kinder Morgan, the Fourth Circuit held that such an indirect discharge may be subject to regulation under the CWA when there is a direct hydrological connection between the discharge into groundwater and the direct discharge into navigable, surface waters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    January 21, 2019 —
    In my last article, “What a construction defect ‘win’ looks like for a builder,” I made the point that builders should go to great lengths to work with homeowners to resolve legitimate problems through the entire statute of repose, in order to prevent the homeowners from involving attorneys. Again, happy homeowners do not call attorneys and do not bring construction defect claims. In this article, I want to address the ramifications of this strategy that builders should consider. First, builders must be aware that any repairs performed will likely start anew the statutes of limitation and repose for the repairs. Second, builders should inform and involve their insurers in this process so as to avoid running afoul of their carriers’ “voluntary payments” clauses. In the long run, keeping homeowners happy is well worth the cost, especially if you keep in mind these additional considerations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    December 20, 2012 —
    The former head of Orients Construction Company and of Melrose Construciton Company, Herlindo Garcia-Merlos, has entered a guilty plea to charges that the gave false informoation to his insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group, for more than three years in order to lower his workers compensation payments. Mr. Garcia-Merlos was able to underpay by more than $315,000 as a result of this deception. Mr. Garcia-Merlos additionally failed to file tax returns for his companies and underreported his wages on his own tax returns. The State of New Jersey is seeking an eight-year prison term and restitution of more than $400,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    November 20, 2013 —
    According to the analytics and advisory firm PPR, the Boston-area market is “ungodly tight.” So even with all the building planned for the area, it’s likely to make the market normal and not lead to a glut. PPR predicts that the building boom may cool off in 2016, with the next mayoral administration. Some of the condo real estate has been fetching multi-million prices. Sue Hawkes, president and CEO of The Collaborative Cos. Points out that there are about 1,500 units in Boston priced in excess of $2 million. She wonders about future buyers in the luxury market. “Where are all these people going to come from?” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    November 16, 2020 —
    In a non-construction case, but an interesting case nonetheless, the Second District Court of Appeals talks about the measure of damages when dealing with chattel (property) including loss of use damages. Chattel, you say? While certainly not a word used in everyday language, a chattel is “an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (such as buildings) connected with real property.” Equipment, machinery, personal items, furniture, etc. can be considered chattel. With respect to the measure of damages for a chattel:
    “Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value,” the plaintiff may make an election out of two theories of recovery in addition to compensation for the loss of use. Badillo v. Hill, 570 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928 (Am. Law Inst. 1939)). In addition to compensation for the loss of use, the plaintiff may elect either “the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm” or “the reasonable cost of repairs or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.” Id. (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928).
    Sack v. WSW Rental of Sarasota, LLC, 45 Fla.L.Weekly D2306a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Sack is a good example of a case dealing with the measure of damages with a chattel, here, an aircraft, including loss of use damages. 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

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    May 11, 2020 —
    I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. 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

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    February 12, 2013 —
    Colorado State Senator Mark Scheffel has removed Senate Bill 13-052 from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s calendar because he feels an upcoming study on construction near transit centers will be important for the consideration of the bill. SB 13-052 would affect construction defect claims in communities that were within a half mile of public transportation. Critics claim it would gut construction defect protections, as even a bus stop would count as a “mass transit center.” Scheffel says he doesn’t know what the study will find, but says that whether he likes or hates it, it will be relevant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of