BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps

    Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Three Reasons Lean Construction Principles Are Still Valid

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    Construction Contract Provisions that Should Pique Your Interest

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!

    The Benefits of Incorporating AI Into the Construction Lifecycle

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

    Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Colorado Nearly Triples Damages Caps for Cases Filed in 2025, Allows Siblings to File Wrongful Death Claims

    Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream
    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

    Contractor Owed a Defense

    November 07, 2022 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the lower court and found that the insured contractor was entitled to a defense for alleged construction defects. Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 393 (Ill. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022). The owners association (AOAO) sued M/I Homes for breach of contract and the implied warranty of habitability due to alleged defects. The AOAO alleged that the defects caused physical injury to the townhomes. There was resulting property damage such as damage to other building materials, windows and patio doors, and water damage to the interior of units. M/I Homes requested a defense from Acuity, but the request was denied. 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

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    November 19, 2021 —
    Los Angeles, Calif. (October 18, 2021) - On October 13, 2021, the California Supreme Court declined to review a published, unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeal in favor of comedian Kathy Griffin and her husband, Randy Bick. The plaintiff-appellants claimed Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick violated their privacy rights by using home security cameras to record “every move and every communication” in the plaintiffs’ private back yard. Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick maintained that the lawsuit was filed by their neighbors in retaliation after the husband directed what the Court of Appeal described as “an expletive-laden rant” at Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick. The neighbor's rant was recorded by security cameras and reported in the media, as well as publicized during Ms. Griffin’s performances at the Dolby Theater. In the trial court, Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick successfully moved for summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ privacy causes of action. In July 2021, the Court of Appeal affirmed, calling the appellants’ claims “hyperbole.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    March 04, 2019 —
    In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    March 29, 2021 —
    As all employers should well know by now, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and many state and local counterparts may require employers to engage in an interactive process in response to a disabled employee’s request for a workplace accommodation. A recent ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates why employers have a very strong financial incentive to be proactive in adopting and rigorously enforcing their disability accommodation policies. In Burnett v. Ocean Properties, decided on February 2, 2021, a wheelchair user employed by a hotel chain call center complained internally that the office’s entrance was not accessible to him. It had heavy doors beyond which was a downward slope that caused the plaintiff’s wheelchair to roll backwards as the door closed on him, requiring him to exert greater force as he struggled to enter. He asked that push-button automatic doors be installed. The employer did not take any meaningful steps to address the complaint with the plaintiff. Eventually he was injured as he tried to open the door. Still, the employer did not follow up on his accommodation request. The plaintiff eventually filed an administrative charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission. The employer met with the plaintiff at that time, but claimed lack of familiarity with ADA compliance requirements and took no action to address the complaint. The plaintiff eventually resigned and filed suit in federal court when the administrative process was completed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    December 07, 2020 —
    In Caliber Paving Company, Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc., Case No. G0584406 (September 1, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a higher-tiered party on a construction project can be held liable for intentional interference with contract when it interferes with the contract between lower-tiered parties even though the higher-tiered party has an economic interest in the contract between the lower-tiered parties. The Caliber Paving Case Project owner Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc. owns and operates industrial property throughout Southern California. In 2017, Rexford hired contractor Steve Fodor Construction to perform repaving work at Rexford’s property in Carson, California. Fodor Construction in turn hired subcontractor Caliber Paving Company, Inc. to perform the repaving work. The subcontract divided the parking lot into four areas, with separate costs to repave each area, and Caliber completed its work in one area in June 2017. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    October 01, 2013 —
    The New York and New Jersey coastal communities are still in the thick of rebuilding and repairing after hurricane Sandy struck almost a year ago. Newsday reports that in the eight months following the October 2012 storm, more than 23,000 building permits were issued in Long Island communities, an 11 percent rise over the previous year. The town of Long Beach, New York has waived fees and hired more staff in order to encourage people to rebuild, in order to rebuild the town’s tax base. Homeowners aren’t going it alone, New York expects to fund more than $1 billion of rebuilding for homeowners who are unable to afford repairing their homes. At this point, the state is still processing more than five thousand requests for grants. The money is still in the state’s coffers. Other homeowners are still filing insurance claims. While towns are busy issuing building permits, contractors are busy too. Bill Sims of Sims Steel said that his business has changed from commercial construction to raising homes higher to put them above future floods. “There’s probably been more homes raised this last year than in the previous 20 years,” he told Newsday. Another contractor, Pat Gordon said that he is “only taking what we can handle.” He described Long Beach as “a traffic jam of construction trucks that has never been seen before.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract

    March 08, 2021 —
    Construction agreements can be lengthy. They often include terms covering everything from logistics for working on the project site to complicated provisions regarding intellectual property. Many provisions in a construction agreement deal with risk and who is going to pay for damage claims if or when they occur. However, not all risk-shifting provisions are equally important. While provisions that impose obligations on the contractor to maintain confidentiality, indemnify for personal injury or property damage, or correct defective work can expose a contractor to substantial damage claims and are thus important, contractors can significantly control the amount of damages the owner can claim by including a well-drafted waiver of “consequential damages” provision in the agreement. Because the waiver of consequential damages can significantly control the amount of damages for which a contractor is assuming risk and greatly limit the owner’s ability to recoup many damages, it is arguably the most important provision in a construction contract. Therefore, it is essential for contractors and owners to carefully consider the waiver of consequential damages before entering into any construction agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy P. Brummond, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Brummond may be contacted at jbrummond@lewisrice.com

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    September 17, 2015 —
    In what could lead to a draconian result, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a contractor who performs work without a valid license can be required to disgorge all payments received, even if the contractor perfectly performed its work. The case, Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393), involved an $18,000,000 contract between Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Jacobs Facilities”) and the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”). In April 2006, Jacobs Facilities, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs Engineering”) entered into a three year contract with the Judicial Counsel to maintain 121 courthouses and other judicial branch buildings throughout Southern California (the “Contract”). Jacobs Facilities contracted to provide maintenance and oversight services, while retaining subcontractors to perform the actual maintenance and repair work. In December 2006, as part of a corporate reorganization, Jacobs Engineering started winding up Jacobs Facilities and transferred its employees to Jacobs Engineering and then subsequently to another wholly owned subsidiary called Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs Management”). The work that was performed by Jacobs Facilities was taken over by Jacobs Management. As part of the windup, Jacobs Facilities’ Contractor’s State License Board license was allowed to lapse and the license expired by operation of law in November 2008. Although Jacobs Management was now performing the work, it was not added as a party to the contract. Although it appears Judicial Council was aware of the corporate changes, it was not until November 2009 that the parties assigned the contract to Jacobs Management. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of