BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

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

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    Surplus Lines Carrier Can Force Arbitration in Louisiana Despite Statute Limiting Arbitration

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    Do You Have an Innovation Strategy?

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    Avoiding Wage Claims in California Construction

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

    Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Insureds' Not Entitled to Recovery for Partial Collapse

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    Construction Bidding for Success

    Legal Risks of Green Building
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    May 08, 2023 —
    In United States Automatic Sprinkler Corporation v. Erie Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 2SS-CT-264, 2023 Ind. LEXIS 105, the Supreme Court of Indiana (Supreme Court) reversed an order of the trial court that denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a sprinkler contractor. At issue was whether commercial tenants – one who contracted with the sprinkler contractor and others who did not – could recover for their respective property damages. The court held that under the contract’s subrogation waiver and agreement to insure, the contracting tenant waived its insurer’s rights to recover through subrogation. With respect to the non-contracting tenants, who sought to recover only property damages, the court held that the absence of contractual privity barred their recovery. The case centered around a sprinkler system that malfunctioned and flooded the Sycamore Springs Office Complex (Landlord), causing extensive property damage to four commercial tenants. Surgery Center, one of the four tenants, requested permission from the Landlord to install a sprinkler system inside the building. Landlord agreed, in exchange for Surgery Center agreeing to be solely responsible for maintaining the sprinkler system. Surgery Center hired United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) to both install and conduct periodic inspection and testing of the sprinkler system. The contract terms outlined the scope of work to be performed by Automatic Sprinkler and the work was limited to the inspection and testing of the sprinkler system. Although repairs and emergency services were excluded from the contract, each could be performed upon the request and authorization of Surgery Center for an additional cost. The contract also contained certain risk allocation provisions including a waiver of subrogation and an agreement to insure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    July 19, 2011 —

    Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.

    Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.

    When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.

    The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    March 19, 2015 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a jury “convicted four defendants charged in the massive scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations.” Convicted defendants included former Benzer attorney Keith Gregory, Benzer’s half-sister Edith Gillespie, Salvatore Ruvolo, and David Ball. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Prosecutors contended the multimillion-dollar scheme was carried out between 2003 and 2009 by former construction company boss Leon Benzer and the late construction defects lawyer Nancy Quon. Benzer has since pleaded guilty. Quon committed suicide in 2012 under the weight of the high-profile investigation.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    May 01, 2019 —
    On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.” The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

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

    June 26, 2023 —
    BWB&O is excited to announce Partner Courtney Serrato and Associates Andrew Arakelian, Pamchal Deylami, and Brian Taylor have been selected in the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Family Law and Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The objective of Super Lawyers’ patented multiphase selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Please join us in congratulating Courtney, Andrew, Pamchal, and Brian on achieving this level of recognition! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    October 26, 2017 —
    Newly constructed and newly converted condominiums in the District of Columbia often contain concealed or “latent” construction defects. Left undetected and unrepaired, defects in the construction of a condominium can cause extensive damage over time, requiring associations to assess their members substantial repair costs that could have been avoided by making timely developer warranty claims. This article provides a general overview of how Washington DC condominium associations transitioning from developer control can proactively and successfully identify defects and resolve construction defect claims with condominium developers and builders. Condominium Association Responsibility for Timely Evaluation of Common Element Construction Condominium associations are charged with the responsibility of overseeing and maintaining condominium common element facilities, typically consisting of building roofs, exterior walls, foundations, lobbies, common hallways, elevators, surrounding grounds, and the common structural mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Following the period of developer control, it is incumbent upon a condominium association’s first unit owner elected board of directors to evaluate the construction of the condominium common element facilities and determine whether the existing, developer-created, budget and reserve fund are adequate to cover the cost of maintaining, repairing, and ultimately replacing the condominium facilities over time. 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

    Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

    September 03, 2014 —
    A fight over fracking is looming in Texas. Another stand-off is shaping up in Colorado. Yet drillers’ reactions couldn’t be more different. In Texas, drillers are doing their noisy in-your-face fracking as usual. Meanwhile, on a small farm about an hour from the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the oil industry is giving fracking a makeover, cutting back on rumbling trucks and tamping down on pollution. Oil companies in Colorado are responding to a rising tide of resentment as local communities and environmental activists vie to impose measures to ban fracking or restrict drilling. A series of ballot initiatives and other grass roots opposition around the country is seen as threatening the booming shale industry, even in oil-friendly Texas, where the U.S. energy renaissance began. Reprinted courtesy of Zain Shauk, Bloomberg and Bradley Olson, Bloomberg Mr. Shauk may be contacted at zshauk@bloomberg.net; Mr. Olson may be contacted at bradleyolson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    February 21, 2013 —
    On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    mclain@hhmrlaw.com