BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past

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

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Latest Updates On The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

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

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    The National Building Museum’s A-Mazing Showpiece

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project
    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

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    July 19, 2021 —
    The Southern District of California published a decision in May 2021 in Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1921016 (S.D. Cal. 5/12/21) concerning the scope of a breach of contract exclusion in a general liability insurance policy as applied to a construction defect action. The suit was filed by Associated Industries Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company for equitable contribution for amounts spent to defend and indemnify the parties co-insured, referred to as JGCI in the decision. JGCI agreed to build a building for a third party pursuant to a written construction contract. The City of Davis issued a certificate of occupancy for the building on May 6, 2005. The City’s permits stated the building was final on that date. Mt. Hawley issued the first of several annual general liability insurance policies in September 2005. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    November 16, 2020 —
    It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.” Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending. By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams
    Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    October 07, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life across six states, in addition to the immeasurable damages caused by Hurricane Helene throughout the Southeast this past week. Hundreds of communities are without power. Citizens cannot move safely from one place to another. And in its wake, the storm has left many without drinking water and sewage services. As civil engineers, our first priority when we design and build the structures that connect us is the public's safety and well-being; we are heartbroken to see so many lives lost or upended by Hurricane Helene. As someone who has experienced losing everything in a catastrophic flood event, I have seen first-hand the need for making communities more resilient, and the consequences of failing to do so. Although hurricanes have consistently been a threat in the U.S., particularly in the Southeast, extreme weather events and 500-year floods are increasing in regularity and our aging infrastructure systems were not built to withstand storms of this magnitude. Total prevention of loss of life or property damage can never be guaranteed, but Helene is a reminder of the importance of widespread adoption of up-to-date, modern building codes and standards. We are thankful for the hard work of first responders, the military, and other organizations working around the clock to save lives and meet the immediate needs of people affected by this storm. As communities begin the long recovery process, civil engineers will be there to help communities rebuild the roads, bridges, dams, water systems, and other infrastructure damaged or destroyed by the storm. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

    June 05, 2017 —
    On February 10, 2017, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that if a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of a homeowner’s Notice of Claim within 14 days, as required by the Right to Repair Act (“SB800”), specifically California Civil Code §913, the homeowner is released from the requirements of SB800 and may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit. In Blanchette v. Superior Court, Blanchette owned 1 of 28 homes constructed by GHA Enterprises, Inc. (“GHA”). On February 2, 2016, Blanchette served GHA with notice of a claim, setting forth the alleged defects in all 28 homes. On February 23, 2016, GHA responded that the construction defects were not alleged with sufficient “reasonable detail” as required by Civil Code §910. In response, Blanchette asserted that GHA’s response was untimely and thus excused him and the other homeowners from any obligations under SB800. The trial court found for the builder, GHA, holding that Blanchette’s Notice of Claim lacked detail sufficient to trigger GHA’s obligations under SB800. Blanchette appealed the ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    April 25, 2012 —

    The eleventh defendant has entered a guilty plea in the ongoing federal investigation of construction defect fraud in the Las Vegas area. Mahin Quintero plead guilty to producing a false authentication feature, a misdemeanor. Ms. Quintero’s part in the scheme was to falsely authenticate signatures on loan documents for straw buyers. Ms. Quintero stated in court that she had been ordered to destroy her notary book three years ago. According to her plea bargain, the straw buyers did not appear in front of her when she notarized their signatures. As part of the scheme, the straw buyers would take control of homeowners associates, sending construction defect complaints and repairs to favored firms.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    December 11, 2018 —
    This month’s key employment law cases address the test for independent contractor status, the legality of an incentive compensation system, and personal liability for wage and hour violations. Garcia v. Border Transp. Group, LLC, Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2018 Summary: Defendants must satisfy Dynamex ABC test to establish independent contractor status as defense to wage order claims, but Borello multifactor test applies to non-wage-order claims. Facts: Plaintiff leased a taxicab license and taxicab from defendants. Plaintiff brought several employment claims against defendants, including claims for whistleblower wrongful termination, unpaid wages, minimum wages, meal and rest break penalties, wage statement penalties, civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act (“PAGA”), waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims on the ground that plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee. Relying on the factors described in Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341, 256 Cal. Rptr. 543 (1989), defendant presented evidence that plaintiff set his own hours, used the cab for personal business, kept collected fares, used a radio dispatch service, entered into sublease agreements, held other jobs, and advertised services in his own name.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. While plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2018), establishing a new test for independent contractor status under the definition of employment found in the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Reprinted courtesy of Alejandro G. Ruiz, Payne & Fears and Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears Mr. Ruiz may be contacted at agr@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    October 30, 2018 —
    Three hundred thirty-nine homes in Woburn, Mass., were without power on Oct. 8 after National Grid shut off gas meters following the inadvertent over-pressurization of the natural gas line on Oct. 8, according to the Woburn Fire Dept. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    August 04, 2021 —
    When bidding a project, subsurface or latent site conditions that are not immediately apparent can massively impact the costs of performance to general contractors. Were contractors required to bid on projects without any information on pre-existing conditions, they would need either to be assured that any additional costs would be reimbursed by the owner, or to include significant contingencies for subsurface conditions in their bids. For owners, these options result in either increased risk or increased cost—neither of which is particularly palatable. Owners therefore implement several contractual tools to minimize these risks and costs. One of these tools is providing bidders with a report on latent conditions, often called a “geotechnical data report” or “GDR”, but otherwise shifting as much of the subsurface-related risk as possible to the contractor. In theory, these reports permit contractors to appropriately adjust their contingencies for latent conditions, thus saving owners money. However, several independent and thorny issues arise where site reports provided by the owner are either inconsistent with or silent on the actual conditions of a project site. Hence owners often include disclaimers with these reports, such as noting that the report is for “informational purposes only” or that the report is “not part of the contract documents." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com