BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    Job Gains a Positive for Housing

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

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

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    NARI Addresses Construction Defect Claim Issues for Remodeling Contractors

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney
    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

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    October 25, 2021 —
    Federal construction contracts law generally recognizes four basic methods for pricing damages: (1) Actual Cost Method (ACM); (2) Total Cost Method (TCM); (3) Modified Total Cost Method (MTCM); and (4) Jury Verdict Recovery Method (JVRM). In practice, it is difficult to obtain significant recoveries on TCM and JVRM claims, and only marginally easier on MTCM claims. That is because the courts and boards that hear federal government contracts cases have developed a clear preference for the ACM. Despite this preference, many contractors do not have systems in place to maximize their opportunity to recover damages under the ACM. This article introduces various strategies for tracking and allocating damages during project performance in a manner that will support an ACM analysis if a federal construction claim is litigated. Background: Four Basic Methods for Pricing Damages The four methods for pricing damages are described, below: 1. Actual Cost Method The actual cost method claims damages based on records of “actual costs” that were documented during the performance of the contract. All additional costs must be separately recorded from the costs incurred in the normal course of contract performance. Because contractors provide the court or board with documented underlying expenses under the actual cost method, courts and boards prefer this method. However, the actual cost method may not always be feasible where a contractor is confronted with drastic changes early and often in a project. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild LLP and Jane Han, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    World’s Biggest Crane Lifts Huge Steel Ring at U.K. Nuclear Site

    January 25, 2021 —
    The world’s largest crane hoisted the first of three massive steel rings that will encase one of the reactors at Electricite de France SA’s nuclear construction site in the U.K., a key milestone in getting the project completed on time. Operators of the 250-meter (820-foot) tall crane, affectionately known as “Big Carl,” lifted the ring that weighs as much as a jumbo jet overnight to take advantage of windless conditions. Hinkley Point C is the U.K.’s first new nuclear power plant in more than two decades. Once up and running the reactor will generate electricity for six million homes by 2025. It’s the largest and most advanced infrastructure project in the country and, when finished, will contain 3 million tons of concrete and 50,000 tons of structural steel, enough to build a railway line between London and Rome. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Morison, Bloomberg

    New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

    May 30, 2022 —
    The opinion in Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc. (2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 412) issued by the Court of Appeal of California Sixth Appellate District, on May 13, 2022, makes it clear that a properly licensed general contractor cannot bring an action for compensation from an owner for work performed by an unlicensed subcontractor. California licensing law has long made explicit that an unlicensed contractor cannot bring or maintain any action to collect or recover compensation for work that contractor performed unless they were duly licensed at all times during the performance of that work. This new ruling extends the scope of this restriction to licensed contractors who hired unlicensed subcontractors. The Underlying Dispute The case involved a dispute between property owners and their former general contractor and its principal (collectively “TWA”). The property owners hired TWA to construct a home, and during the early stages of the project, TWA hired an unlicensed subcontractor to perform tree trimming services and to remove a large eucalyptus tree. The subcontractor partially removed the eucalyptus tree, but was stopped by a neighbor, and it was discovered that the tree was partly located on the neighbor’s property. The neighbor brought suit against the property owners, and eventually TWA, for the damage. The property owners subsequently filed a cross-complaint against TWA, and TWA in turn filed a cross-complaint against the property owners. Reprinted courtesy of Michele A. Ellison, Gibbs Giden and Samantha R. Riggen, Gibbs Giden Ms. Ellison may be contacted at mellison@gibbsgiden.com Ms. Riggen may be contacted at sriggen@gibbsgiden.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    October 16, 2018 —
    Design-build contracting is a method of project delivery where the contractor provides both architectural/design and building services to the owner. Yet rarely do firms perform both design and building work in equal measure. Rather, in many instances, firms perform the vast majority of their work on the building side while advertising and providing design services for smaller projects using in-house architects. Regardless of the volume of design-build contracting a firm performs, any firms practicing this method of project delivery must be aware of Washington State’s registration requirement under RCW 18.08.420(1), and specifically the condition that a “designated architect” must serve as a partner, manager or director of the firm’s governing structure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Krawczyk, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Krawczyk may be contacted at john.krawczyk@acslawyers.com

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    August 28, 2023 —
    The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
    Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

    Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    June 17, 2024 —

    White and Williams congratulates the fifteen attorneys nominated as Super Lawyers and ten attorneys named Rising Stars across our Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia offices. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

     Super Lawyers 2024

    Attorney

    Super Lawyers Denoted Practice Area (s)

     
    David B. Chaffin Business Litigation
    Robert G. Devine Personal Injury, Employment Litigation, Products Liability
    David D. Gilliss Surety, Construction Litigation, Administrative Law
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    March 04, 2024 —
    Mass timber has the potential to be a critical building component for the cities of the near future given the need for the construction sector to reduce its reliance on concrete and steel to lower its Co2 emissions. However, as this market grows and mass timber buildings evolve to greater heights, the construction risk landscape will also be transformed, bringing risk management challenges for companies, according to the new Emerging Risk Trend Talk report from Allianz Commercial. “The emergence of mass timber as a sustainable construction alternative represents a significant opportunity for the building sector to reduce its carbon footprint while also satisfying a demand for a material that is more cost-efficient but as durable as steel and concrete,” says Michael Bruch, Global Head of Risk Advisory Services at Allianz Commercial. “However, in any industry, deployment of new materials or processes can result in new risk scenarios, potential defects, or unexpected safety consequences, as well as bringing benefits, and mass timber is no different. Given this market’s expected future growth, companies should do all they can to develop a greater understanding of their exposures including fire, water damage, repetitive loss scenarios and even termite infestation, and ensure they have robust loss prevention measures in place to combat these.” The need for mass timber The building and construction sector is among the largest contributors to Co2 emissions, accounting for over 34% of energy demand and around 37% of energy and process related Co2 emissions in 2021 [1]. Given emissions reduction is essential to meet climate change commitments around the world, the need for more sustainable solutions in the built environment has become increasingly important, driven by growing investor and consumer concerns, and legislation, regulation and reporting requirements evolving quickly in many jurisdictions around the world. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Allianz Commercial

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    May 13, 2019 —
    Although nothing new, the debate over which is better as a building material—wood or concrete—intensified in December following the preliminary approval of new codes for cross-laminated timber and mass timber in tall structures. The discussion among industry professionals has been less about CLT’s structural capabilities and more about its perceived flammability, with either side offering decidedly different perspectives. Comparatively new to the United States, CLT and mass timber products are constructed of several layers of pressed lumber board stacked in alternating directions. In December, the International Code Council released the unofficial voting results on several code change proposals, including passage of the entire package of 14 tall mass timber codes. The proposals were presented by the ICC’s Ad Hoc Committee on Tall Wood Buildings, comprised mostly of engineers, architects, building and fire code officials, fire service, materials and testing lab representatives. Reprinted courtesy of Sam Barnes, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of