BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    How to Defend Stucco Allegations

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/18/23) – Construction Inventory, 3D Printing, and Metaverse Replicas

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    Miorelli Doctrine’s Sovereign Immunity in Public Construction Contracts — Not the Be-All and End-All

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Do Change Orders Need to be in Writing and Other Things That Might Surprise You

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    How Machine Learning Can Help with Urban Development

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    New Executive Orders Expedite the Need for Contractors to Go Green

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    October 15, 2014 —
    The court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014). The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products. Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium. 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

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    June 11, 2014 —
    In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    November 14, 2018 —
    The trial court's use of a multiplier in awarding fees to the insured was affirmed by the Florida Court of Appeal. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Laguerre, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11794 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018). Following Hurricane Wilma, the insured made a claim for wind damage to her insurer, Citizens. Citizens investigated the claim and paid $8,400.77. The insured then demanded an appraisal and submitted an appraisal estimate in the amount of $60,256.79. There was no response to the appraisal demand. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

    May 25, 2020 —
    Coronavirus is dominating the news. Construction in Virginia is facing what is at best an uncertain future and at worst a series of large scale shutdowns due to COVID-19. The number of cases seem to grow almost exponentially on a daily basis while states and the federal government try and patch together a solution. All of this adds up to the possibility that owners and other construction related businesses could shutter and importantly payment streams can slow or dry up. Aside from keeping your contractual terms in mind and meeting the notice deadlines found in your contract, these uncertain economic times require you to be aware of the claims process. Along with whatever claims process is set out in the contract and your run of the mill breach of contract through non-payment type claims, in times like this payment bond and mechanic’s lien claims are a key way to protect your payment interest. The law has differing requirements for each of these unique types of payment claims. Mechanic’s liens are technical and statute based with very picky requirements. The form and content of a memorandum of lien will be strictly read and in most cases form will trump substance. Further, among other requirements best discussed with a Virginia construction lawyer, you must keep in mind two numbers, 90 and 150. The 90 days is the amount of time that you have in which to record a lien. This deadline is generally calculated from the last date of work (or possibly the last day of the last month in which you did work). File after this deadline and your lien will be invalid because the right to record a lien has expired. The 150 days is a look back from the last day of work or the date of lien filing, whichever is sooner in time. The 150 days applies to the work that can be captured in the lien. In other words, it dictates the amount of the lien. 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

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    April 12, 2021 —
    I have often discussed the limited circumstances under which a construction contract claim and a fraud claim can coexist. A recent case from the Western District of Virginia federal court demonstrates that care is necessary even in those limited circumstances. In Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys., the Court examined the question of a fraud statute of limitations under Virginia law. The basic facts found in the Complaint are these: In 2011, the United States Army awarded BAE Systems Ordinance Systems Inc. a basic ordering agreement under which BAE was responsible for modernization projects at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant. This action stems from a subcontract between Fluor Federal Solutions LLC and BAE, under which Fluor agreed to design and construct a new natural gas boiler at the plant. Fluor has completed work on the project, and BAE has accepted that work. Nonetheless, Fluor claims that BAE has refused or failed to pay for the balance of the project costs. Fluor alleges that BAE received several changes to its prime contract from the Army but did not pass those changes along to Fluor until after BAE solicited a bid from Fluor and entered a contract with Fluor to build a temporary facility. Instead, BAE continued to misrepresent the scope of the project. Fluor alleges that the change in plans increased costs substantially, but that BAE withheld information about those changes so that it could solicit lower bids. Fluor alleges that it requested a copy of BAE’s prime contract on numerous occasions, but BAE failed to provide a copy of it. Instead, Fluor submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It received a copy of BAE’s prime contract on Oct. 3, 2018. 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

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    August 22, 2022 —
    The Washington Prompt Payment Act, in Ch. 39.76 RCW and in RCW 39.04.250, ensures that contractors and subcontractors are promptly paid for their performance on public works contracts. Where a government entity or a prime contractor wrongfully withholds undisputed amounts due, that government entity or prime contractor must pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum. Separately, prejudgment interest is awarded “based on the principle that a defendant ‘who retains money which he ought to pay to another should be charged interest upon it.’” Hansen v. Rothaus, 107 Wn.2d 468, 472, 730 P.2d 662 (1986) (quoting Prier v. Refrigeration Eng’g Co., 74 Wn.2d 25, 34, 442 P.2d 621 (1968)). The purpose is to “compensate the plaintiff for the use value of the money representing liquidated or determinable damages.” Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    October 01, 2013 —
    Palo Alto, California has a problem. Too many construction or renovation projects have languished without any sign of completion. The city council has a solution: time limits. Under current rules, projects only have to complete enough work so that there’s something to inspect every six months. Under the proposed rules, builders would have a set time to finish the project, with larger projects getting more time in which to finish. Projects that ran over that time would get fines. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    September 01, 2016 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to announce that it has been ranked fourth among medium sized companies in the Best Places to Work in Orange County – 2016 Survey. The firm was the only law firm to make the top 25 of its category. This marks the fifth consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list showing that its deep commitment to professionalism and client service is shared and appreciated by its workforce. Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner, believes the award is representative of the team effort and atmosphere that is fostered at the firm. “We believe that client satisfaction goes hand-in-hand with work-place satisfaction. By combining an environment in which individual effort is recognized, with a team approach in which everyone is respected, we have achieved the perfect balance for success. We are honored that our employees appreciate our efforts in this regard.” Created in 2009, the awards program evaluates entries based on workplace policies, practices, demographics and also collects employee surveys to measure overall satisfaction and experience. The Best Companies Group worked alongside the Orange County Business Journal in collecting and analyzing the data and is a partner in the project. Newmeyer & Dillion has been honored in the July 25 issue of the Orange County Business Journal. For more information on the survey process and to see other award recipients contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159 or visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of