BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    How New York City Plans to Soak Up the Rain

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    The ARC and The Covenants

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    More Charges Anticipated in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500
    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

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    January 04, 2021 —
    Introduction The right to offset refers to the common sense ability to reduce or eliminate your payment obligations to a party who owes you money on another contract. With offsets, common law largely tracks common sense. The right of offset is recognized by statute and court decisions in many states as well as under federal law and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The right to offset can also be established in the contract or subcontract. But like many things that may seem simple, the right to offset can easily become complex. This article provides an overview of the extent and limits of the right to offset varies from state to state and with federal government contracts about the extent and limits of the right of offset. Construction trust fund statutes add another layer of complications. These variations may not be obvious or intuitive, but they have a tremendous impact on your right to get paid or your right to withhold payment. Because of the variations, you must always confirm the law applicable to your contract or subcontract, which may not be where the project or you are located. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    April 19, 2022 —
    In law school, one of the first legal doctrines we learn is known as the “statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds is essentially a defense to a contract enforcement action claiming the contract is unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. In other words, this doctrine is raised when one party seeks to enforce a contract. The other party argues, “not so fast,” because the contract is NOT enforceable in light of the statute of frauds. Common scenarios where the statute of frauds comes into play are with transactions involving real property or agreements where services are not to be performed within one year. The statue of frauds doctrine is contained in Florida Statute s. 725.01:
    No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.
    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

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

    March 20, 2023 —
    The Federal Highway Administration has agreed to let a $9-billion Texas highway reconstruction project proceed after a two-year pause over concerns linked to the project’s potential impact on communities along the route, including a lawsuit filed by Harris County to halt contracting, pending a new environmental impact review. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    January 28, 2015 —
    It is an all-too-common scenario in California construction: Nine and a half years after completion of a major California construction project, immediately before the 10-year “statute of repose” for suing on “latent” construction defects expires, a lawsuit claiming damages for “recently discovered” latent construction defects is filed. The property owner sues the contractor for the alleged defects. The direct contractor sues all its subcontractors for indemnity and defense. The attorneys spontaneously generate. Experts proliferate. Claimed defects are extrapolated. Four or five years later, after a few dozen attorneys earn a small fortune in fees, the insurance companies make payments. Attorneys collect more fees. The owners take what remains. They repair nothing... and buy vacation homes. Perhaps a cynical view, but there are many in the construction defect world who would reach a similar conclusion. The question is: How can you defeat this seemingly inevitable chain of events? Under a case known as Brisbane Lodging L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. 216 Cal.App 4th 1249 (2013) there may be hope. California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 grant a 10-year “statute of repose” for bringing claims for “latent” construction defects. These statutes allow a lawsuit for such claimed defects to be filed in court up until ten years after the project has been completed. Latent defects are generally defined as those which are “not apparent by reasonable inspection” (CCP §337.15(b)). It is extremely common for such claims to be filed immediately before this 10-year deadline expires. When the lawsuit is brought, the cash register begins to ring. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Porter Law Group

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    June 01, 2020 —
    Businesses of every nature – including grocery stores, banks, daycares, gyms and restaurants – may face increasing liability claims from customers and third parties claiming to have been exposed to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, while at their location. The novel virus raises issues as to whether businesses have a heightened duty of care to their customers, and what type of exposure businesses face if a customer claims to have been exposed to COVID-19 while at their premises. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Princess Cruise lines for gross negligence in allowing passengers to be exposed to COVID-19 on a cruise ship. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise ship was allowed to go out to sea knowing that it was infected from two previous passengers who came down with symptoms of COVID-19. It further claims that the passengers were not warned of the potential exposure either before or after they boarded the ship. In other news reports around the country, business owners have reported taking extraordinary precautions to prevent customers’ risk of contracting COVID-19. For example, one grocery store recently reported that it discarded $35,000 worth of food after a customer coughed on fresh produce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella and Joshua Tumen Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Hawaii Supreme Court emphatically rejected insurer efforts to seek reimbursement of defense costs absent a provision in the policy providing for such reimbursement in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company, No. SCCQ-22-0000658, 2023 WL 7517083, (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). The state high court’s well-reasoned decision rests on bedrock law regarding insurance policy construction and application, follows the nationwide trend of courts compelling insurers to satisfy their contractual obligations in full, and should carry great weight as other jurisdictions continue to debate the same issue. In Bodell, the Hawaii Supreme Court joined the swelling ranks of courts recognizing that an insurer may not use a reservation of rights to create the extra-contractual “right” to recoup already paid defense costs for a claim on which the insurer ultimately owes no coverage. See, e.g., Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as California, will permit an insurer to seek reimbursement from a policyholder for defense costs incurred in defending claims later determined to be uncovered. See Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 (1997) (holding insurers have a right to reimbursement of defense costs incurred for noncovered claims). Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    October 08, 2014 —
    James Bregenzer, a 31-year-old marketing strategist in Chicago, was rejected for a mortgage in May after successfully financing two previous home purchases. The hitch this time: his monthly payment would have been $100 more than the lender was willing to approve. Bregenzer is in good company. Standards in the U.S. are so high and inflexible that former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, now a Brookings Institute fellow-in-residence with a net worth of at least $1.1 million, said at a conference last week that he couldn’t refinance his house in Washington. Even some doctors struggle to get home loans if they’re self-employed. “We asked if we could go over by $100 and were told that’s just not going to work,” said Bregenzer, who bought his first home before getting married in 2008. “The process of buying a home used to be stupid easy. Now, my wife and I were buying a home with two salaries, we make a heck of a lot more than I used to, and I have to go into great and terrible detail to show documentation.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net