BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule

    The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Denied

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

    Tokyo Tackles Flood Control as Typhoons Swamp Subways

    Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

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

    PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

    Florida Courts Inundated by Wave of New Lawsuits as Sweeping Tort Reform Appears Imminent

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments
    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

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    November 02, 2020 —
    In Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured. Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    August 02, 2017 —
    The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects. Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, No. A145516, (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 2017). The Court also reemphasized that under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, delineated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), the actual and constructive knowledge of the prior landowner is imputed to the current landowner. Estuary Owners Association concerned the development and construction of a 100-unit condominium by Signature at the Estuary, LLC (“Signature”) on land Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) previously used as a fuel distribution terminal. Construction of the condominiums was completed in 2006. In 2008, it was discovered that residual concentrations of petroleum related chemicals remained in the soil, soil gas, and groundwater beneath the development. Later that year, Signature revealed that the condominiums had been constructed with moisture barriers beneath the building slabs instead of the vapor/gas barriers called for in the corrective action plan. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    July 27, 2020 —
    On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (the Flexibility Act). The Flexibility Act provides much-needed flexibility for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and its millions of business participants. The PPP offers loans to small businesses that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by various governmental authorities to stem the spread of the virus so that they could keep their employees on the payroll during an eight-week period after receiving the funds. The PPP was particularly alluring to borrowers because the loans could be forgiven. But as the duration of lockdown orders and the accompanying economic aftershocks have extended longer than initially anticipated, particularly in those sectors that depend on in-person business such as restaurants, hospitality and other “main street” retail establishments, many recipients of PPP loans have found it challenging to use the PPP funds for payroll and other authorized purposes within the eight-week period after they had received the PPP funds, as is necessary to preserve eligibility for forgiveness. The Flexibility Act makes several key changes to the PPP program in order to allow borrowers who need a longer re-opening runway to do so without jeopardizing their ability to qualify for loan forgiveness. This alert outlines the key changes to the PPP made by the Flexibility Act. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Udell, White and Williams LLP and Adam J. Chelminiak, White and Williams LLP Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com; Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September

    October 29, 2014 —
    According to the San Diego Source, in “September 2014, there were 46,000 completed foreclosures nationally, down from 68,000 in September 2013, a year-over-year decrease of 32.6 percent and down 61 percent from the peak of completed foreclosures in 2010, according to the September National Foreclosure Report of CoreLogic.” Between 2000 and 2006, “completed foreclosures averaged 21,000 per month nationwide.” Furthermore, the San Diego Source reported that “[s]ince the financial crisis began in September 2008, there have been approximately 5.2 million completed foreclosures across the country, and since homeownership rates peaked in Q2 of 2004, there have been approximately 7 million homes lost to foreclosure.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    November 12, 2019 —
    If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. 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

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on November 15, 2017 I read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The following case, Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. E063551 (September 8, 2017), highlights some of the issues that can arise when portions of cases settle and other portions go to trial, the recovery of delay damages on a construction project through insurance, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with general contractor Kadena Pacific, Inc. (Kadena) to oversee construction of its Center for Blind Rehabilitation in Menlo Park, California. Kadena, in turn, contracted with subcontractor Global Modular, Inc. (Global) to construct, deliver and install 53 modular units totaling more than 37,000 square feet for a contract price of approximately $3.5 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

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    September 01, 2016 —
    At a presentation before the AGC of Georgia, AHHC attorneys Mark Hanrahan, David Cook, and Chadd Reynolds covered “Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones.” View the presentation here: https://vimeo.com/177566370 On June 23, 2016, the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration issued new regulations regarding non-hobby and non-recreational civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems. These regulations are intended to limit interference with federal airspace while advancing research and safety in commercial industries. They also addressed practical implications and how to comply by the August 29, 2016 deadline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

    August 06, 2019 —
    Project closeout is sometimes one of the last things on a contractor’s mind at the beginning of a project, but project closeout can have a huge impact on a contractor’s overall profitability and success. Effectively managing the closeout process is critical, and it all begins with the negotiation and execution of the project contract. This contract can, and should, provide a complete roadmap for project closeout, as addressing these issues on the front end can set up the parties for successful project completion. It is then equally important to re-review the terms of the contract as project closeout approaches to ensure that everyone, including the owner, adheres to all contractual requirements. This article examines several pertinent issues related to project closeout that should be addressed during the contracting stage, including defining substantial and final completion, inspection and acceptance, punch lists, and warranties. Defining Substantial and Final Completion Having clear definitions for both substantial and final completion in your construction contract is an important and necessary early step in achieving successful project closeout. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com