BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    Keeping Up With Fast-moving FAA Drone Regulations

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

    Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

    HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears

    Miami's Condo Craze Burns Out on Strong Dollar

    The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    Understanding Lien Waivers

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

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause
    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

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    March 19, 2014 —
    The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair. Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case. But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy. The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes. Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com. Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    March 28, 2018 —
    First, a little history: as you know, means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures are all part of the Contractor’s responsibility on a construction site. However, when the AIA A201 was last revised, in 2007, there was a provision put in for that rare time when the Contract Documents gave specific instructions concerning a particular construction method. If the Contractor viewed such instructions as unsafe, he was to give notice to the Owner and Architect, and was not to proceed with that portion of the Work without further written instructions from the Architect. If the Architect directed him to proceed, the Contractor was absolved from any risks with following that instruction. Instead, the Owner assumed the responsibility for any loss or damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    July 31, 2024 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of no duty to defend or indemnify because of an answer on the insured's application for insurance. Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. 12733 (11th Cir. May 28, 2024). Snell was hired by a family, the Westons, to turn an above ground trampoline into a ground level trampoline. This involved various tasks like tree pruning and removal, installation of shrubs, trees, and sod, and setting up a sprinkler irrigation system. The trampoline aspect of the project involved site work to make a place for the trampoline and assembly and installation of the trampoline. The site work included excavation of a pit, installation of a drain and drainage sand, excavation of a trench to install a drainage pipe, installation of the drainage pipe and of a drain pump, construction of concrete block retainer walls and installation of a wood cap on the retainer walls. Then, Snell unboxed the trampoline, assembled it, and lowered it into the pit. A few years later, a visitor to the Weston home sued the Westons for injuries to his daughter suffered on the trampoline. The complaint alleged the daughter was injured when she "fell off of the trampoline and struck her face on the wooden board" surrounding the tramline. The complaint was later amended to add Snell as a defendant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    October 01, 2024 —
    A federal government contractor in Jackson Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 62 Fed.Cl. 84 (Fed.Cl. 2024) sought delay damages against the government. It lost. The reason for the loss is a crucial reminder that documents parties sign ALWAYS matter. ALWAYS!! In Jackson Construction Co., the contractor’s delay claim was premised on relocating a waterline. The contractor, however, received additional money for relocating the waterline, but no additional time, and this was memorialized in a modification to the contract (i.e., a change order). In executing the modification for the additional work, the contractor did NOT reserve rights for time or money. Indeed, the modification reflected that the monetary adjustment constitutes full compensation for the additional work including delay, namely:
    The contract period of performance remains the same. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of the contractor and his subcontractors and suppliers for all costs and markup directly or indirectly, including extended overhead, attributable to the change order, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the change within the time frame stated.
    Jackson Construction Co., supra, at 90.
    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

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    March 30, 2016 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back a good friend, Scott Wolfe. Scott is the founder of zlien, a cloud-based platform that gives construction industry participants control over their financial risk and payment processes. The zlien platform manages the mechanics lien compliance process for all parties in the contracting chain, automating and optimizing the exchange of preliminary notices, monitoring lien rights and exposure, and exchanging lien waivers. zlien empowers over 10,000 companies to optimize their credit and financial risk management, and works to promote a fair and transparent construction payment process, improve B2B relationships, facilitate faster payments, and reduce legal and financial risk. Sending preliminary notice is the most important step in mechanics lien compliance. A majority of states require preliminary notice (sometimes called a pre-lien notice or notice to owner) from contractors, material suppliers, and other construction parties. Even if preliminary notice is not required, however, it is best practice to send this document on all projects for a variety of reasons. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

    May 06, 2024 —
    Liquidated damage clauses are omnipresent in today’s construction contracts—often considered in early negotiations to provide a degree of certainty and limit financial liability. There are two principal types of LDs appearing in construction contracts—(i.) damages for delay when a contractor fails to deliver a project by a certain milestone; and (ii.) performance damages when a contractor fails to meet specific performance requirements. Differentiating between LDs for delay and LDs for performance—especially when both LD types are combined in the same contract—is key to risk awareness and allocation during contract negotiations and throughout performance. This article briefly outlines what you should know about LDs for delay and LDs for failing to meet certain performance requirements. The article also covers how contractors can allocate and cap risks based on risks each party can either manage, insure, or otherwise limit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.

    Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.

    The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.

    The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.

    The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.

    Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.

    Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim

    June 21, 2024 —
    Congratulations to Partner, Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate, Shanna B. Carter on their successful Motion to Dismiss! This personal injury claim arose from an incident whereby Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in front of the client’s business and sustained a traumatic brain injury. Initially, a default was entered against the client, and BWB&O was retained to unwind the same, and then defend against the claim. However, during the initial investigation, Shanna uncovered a defect in the service of the Complaint which invalidated not only the default, but more importantly service of the Complaint itself. Working as a team, Shanna performed the research and writing, and Jeff argued the Motion to Dismiss which was granted dispensing of the entire claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP