BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultant
    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


    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    Leftover Equipment and Materials When a Contractor Is Abruptly Terminated

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    Newmeyer Dillion Partner Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Named One of Orange County's 500 Most Influential by Orange County Business Journal

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Business Risk Exclusion Dooms Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Hunton Insurance Practice Receives Top (Tier 1) National Ranking by US News & World Report

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

    The EEOC Is Actively Targeting the Construction Industry

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

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

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    Indemnity Provision Prevails Over "Other Insurance" Clause

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.
    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

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    March 16, 2017 —
    King County Superior Court issued sanctions of $1,641,721 in favor of Gefco and against Cascade Drilling, Inc. and its President, Bruce Niermeyer, composed of $1,394,435 in attorneys’ fees and $247,286 in expert fees. [i] Cascade Drilling is a contractor. Gefco manufactures and sells large drilling machinery. The dispute centered around a project that began in 2008. Cascade was hired to drill a water well at a housing development in Wheeler Canyon, California. Cascade used a 50K drilling rig purchased from Gefco. The pump drive shafts on the drilling rig failed four times. After each failure, Cascade ordered a replacement pump drive shaft from Gefco. In September 2008, Cascade ordered drilling equipment for an unrelated drilling rig from Gefco, but did not pay Gefco. Gefco then sued to collect. Cascade admitted not paying, but asserted counterclaims alleging that Gefco was indebted to Cascade for non-conforming and defective goods, including the replacement pump drive shafts purchased from Gefco for the Wheeler Canyon project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ah-lawyers.com

    Five Facts About Housing That Will Make People In New York City and San Francisco Depressed

    February 26, 2015 —
    If you live in New York or San Francisco, you should spend some time mining the latest crop of home price data -- starting with the Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller indices. Then, pull out your last rent check. It might be enough to make you move. Here are a few things to get you thinking: 1. What you pay for parking in New York can buy a cheap home in Chicago The cheapest tier of homes in the Windy City were valued at less than $170,368 in November, the Case-Shiller tiered-price indices show (there are three tiers: low, middle and high). That compares to the $136,052 average price tag for parking space in New York last year, according to Jonathan J. Miller, the president of the appraisal firm Miller Samuel and a Bloomberg View contributor. Reprinted courtesy of Flavia Krause-Jackson, Bloomberg and Alexandre Tanzi, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    December 06, 2021 —
    Construction surety bonds are risk management tools utilized by parties on large construction projects. However, bonds are not insurance, and a surety is not an “insurer” of the project. Different from insurance, a surety’s obligation to act typically arises if the principal fails to perform in accordance with the construction contract, and if the claimant satisfies the conditions precedent to enforcing the bond.[1] This article focuses exclusively on performance bonds on private projects,[2] and highlights practical considerations and surety defenses to enforcement of the performance bond.[3] Spoiler alert – the party making a claim on the bond must strictly adhere to the conditions precedent set forth in the bond throughout the construction project and when calling upon the surety to take action, otherwise the performance bond may be rendered void and unenforceable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP
    Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    May 20, 2015 —
    The insured's claim for bad faith investigation regarding their hail damage claim did not survive the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Amarillo Hospitality Tenant, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56228 (N. D. Tex. April 29, 2015). A hailstorm caused damage to the Courtyard Marriot. The day after the storm, the insured inspected the roof of the hotel and observed damage to a sign and some aluminum vent tubes. No damage to the roof itself was observed. Subsequently, leaks were found on the tenth floor of the hotel. A public adjuster concluded that the roof had sustained damage during the hailstorm. The insured filed a claim with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The insurer paid for the cost of repairing the damaged sign. To determine whether the damage to the roof was caused by the hailstorm, the insurer hired Donna Engineering, who conducted two inspections of the roof. Both inspections concluded that the hailstorm did not cause damage to the roof. Consequently, the claim was denied. 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

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

    July 31, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the initial tip-off came from Scott Canepa, a construction defect attorney who alerted the FBI about Leon Benzer’s activities in taking over homeowner boards. Canepa learned that Nancy Quon was taking part in the scheme and went to the FBI with the information. After FBI officials met with Canepa, they launched an investigation, which they named “Operation GrandMaster.” Although a Benzer associate stated that Benzer claimed not to have ties to organized crime, and according to the Review-Journal, “preferred to think of himself as ‘just a bully,’” the case involves connections to a number of figures with ties to organized crime. Benzer with associated with John V. Spilotro, a lawyer whose uncle was an alleged overseer for Chicago organized crime operating in Las Vegas in the 70s and 80s. Another conspirator, Paul Citelli, reportedly has ties to organized crime in Buffalo. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    June 09, 2016 —
    This article pertains to needed condominium construction defect warranty reform legislation that the Maryland Legislature has been reluctant to enact into law. Below is an explanation of the legislation and a list of practical steps CAI members can take to support the legislation during the upcoming 2017 legislative session. Background The warranty reform legislation was unsuccessfully introduced during the 2016 legislative session as “Senate Bill 250” (“SB 250”) and “House Bill 1170” (“HB 1170”). Both bills were identical, one being filed in the Senate and the other in the House of Delegates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It

    February 14, 2022 —
    It’s hard to imagine a better scenario for real estate technology than the one that played out in 2021. Low interest rates and pent-up demand ignited the hottest housing market on record, while the pandemic gave buyers and sellers new reasons to conduct business virtually. And yet the year will be better remembered for the way some of the biggest names in the industry struggled. The highest-profile flop was Zillow Group Inc., the online listings giant that pulled the plug on its nascent instant homebuying operation in the face of mounting losses. Compass Inc., the tech-driven real estate brokerage, saw its shares plummet 50% as part of a broader selloff in property-related technology stocks. Better, an online mortgage company, fired 9% of its staff. The bumpy year underscored a problem that’s been holding back the adoption of technology in real estate for the past two decades. Each sale of a home involves hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and no two properties are exactly alike. Silicon Valley-backed companies have gone a long way in making searching for homes and advertising them simpler and faster. But it’s a difficult process to move fully online and involves a lot of people such as agents, appraisers, brokers, and contractors, as well as entrenched interests. For example, Zillow’s house buying business—billed as a way for customers to get out of their homes quickly and speed the moving process—faltered in part because the company couldn’t find enough contractors to fix up those homes to resell them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    November 18, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.

    The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”

    Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”

    Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”

    The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”

    The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.

    The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.

    Read the court’s decision…

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