BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Estimate Tops $5.5B for Cost of Rebuilding After Maui Fires

    What Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square Feet

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    Richest NJ Neighborhood Fights Plan for Low-Cost Homes on Toxic Dump

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Arctic Fires Are Melting Permafrost That Keeps Carbon Underground

    Shutdowns? What A Covid-19-Safe Construction Site Looks Like

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    The Reptile Theory in Practice

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Florida Passes Tort Reform Bill

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Sanibel Causeway Repair: Contractors Flooded Site With Crews, Resources

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

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

    COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    US Supreme Court Backs Panama Canal Owner in Dispute with Builders

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo

    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

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

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    April 08, 2014 —
    The Alabama Supreme Court withdrew is prior opinion and authored a new decision finding that construction defects are an "occurrence." Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, No. 1120764 (Ala. March 28, 2014) [decision here]. Jim Carr Homebuilder (JCH) contracted to build a home for the Johnsons. After completion of the construction and moving in, the Johnsons noticed several problems with the house, including water leaking through the roof, walls, and floors, resulting in water damage to those and other areas of the house. When JCH was unable to satisfactorily fix the problems, the Johnsons sued, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligence. Owners, JCH's insurer, defended under a reservation of rights. The matter went to arbitration, where an award of $600,000 was made to the Johnsons. Owners filed a declaratory judgment action against the Johnsons and JCH. Owners argued that the property damage upon which the award was based was not the result of an "occurrence." The trial court determined that the entire arbitration award was covered under the policy. 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

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017 Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Be Mindful Accepting Payment When Amounts Owed Are In Dispute

    August 29, 2022 —
    After completing work on a project, or even during a project, it is not uncommon for some portion of the contract balance and/or a claim to be in dispute. As a contractor or subcontractor, it is important to be careful what is signed (or not signed) upon receipt of any payment both during and after completion of work on a project. One of the most common documents signed related to a receipt of payment is a lien/claim release document. This can be in the form of a conditional, unconditional, progress and/or final release. The language included in the release document is critically important, especially as it pertains to disputed amounts. As a contractor or subcontractor, if there are known disputes related to amounts owing, whether it be contract balance, disputed change order(s), a delay or inefficiency claim, or any other amounts believed to be owed, it is important to include language in the lien release that expressly carves out the disputed amounts. The same should be done for disputes related to extensions of time. This allows the contractor to accept the payment and release rights for the undisputed work, but continue to reserve its right to pursue the amounts in dispute later. If disputed amounts are not carved out, those amounts may effectively be waived and the subcontractor or contractor may lose all rights to recovery. As a subcontractor in Alaska recently learned, there are potentially other ways a contractor may waive or lose its rights to recover amounts in dispute – without even signing a waiver or release document. In Smallwood Creek, Inc. v. Build Alaska General Contracting, LLC et al., the general contractor sent the subcontractor a check described as “final payment.” The subcontractor believed it was owed more than what the general contractor had sent and refused to accept the check. Months later, the subcontractor deposited the check. The subcontractor reversed course again and attempted to repay the general contractor the amount deposited. The general contractor refused, claiming the subcontractor’s acceptance of payment constituted satisfaction of all amounts owing to the subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    February 03, 2020 —
    When preparing a contractor’s final payment affidavit, I always suggest for a contractor (or anyone in privity of contract with the owner) to identify the undisputed amounts their accounting reflects is owed to ALL subcontractors, etc., regardless of whether that entity preserved their lien rights. If the contractor provided a payment bond, I footnote this simply to support that none of the lower-tiered subcontractors have lien rights or are the traditional “lienor.” (Thus, there is no prejudice to the owner if an entity is inadvertently omitted from the affidavit.) There are times, however, where a contractor does not identify a subcontractor that did not serve a notice to owner and, therefore, has no valid lien rights. Or, a contractor omits a lienor that actually did serve a notice to owner and preserve its lien rights; this happens. There was an older First District Court of Appeals case that harshly (and, quite, unfairly) held that the contractor must identify everyone in the final payment affidavit regardless of whether that entity timely served a notice to owner or their lien is invalid. This case, however, predated, a 1998 statutory change to Florida’s Lien Law. 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

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    October 28, 2011 —

    The high school gym in Lake Oswego, Oregon has been shut down because testing has revealed that the construction defects have lead to deterioration of the structural integrity of the roof. The school district noted that there was a chance of collapse if there were a “significant seismic event or heavy rain and winds and snow.” The school district has been in a lawsuit with the builders since 2008, which was recently settled for $600,000.

    The school board is still determining whether the original contractor will be asked to correct the defect or if they will bid the job out.

    Read the full story...

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

    KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    December 04, 2018 —
    In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Perez may be contacted at pap@sdvlaw.com

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    November 23, 2016 —
    The Eleventh Circuit found there was no duty to defend the contractor additional insured for the costs of repairing and replacing roofing installed incorrectly by the subcontractor insured. Core Constr. Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17575 (11th Cir. Sept 28, 2016). After the condominium project was completed, Hurricane Wilma damaged several roofs in the development. The association and its insurer, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, discovered that the roof had been installed incorrectly by Patnode Roofing, Inc. Empire paid for the damages and the association assigned its claims against Core Construction and its subcontractors, including Patnode, to Empire. Empire then sued Core Construction, Patnode and other subcontractors. 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

    What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?

    January 02, 2024 —
    CE just wrapped its "2024 Economic Update and Forecast" webinar, which revealed some interesting insights for 2023 and projections for next year. Anirban Basu, chief economist for ABC and CEO of Sage Policy Group, began his presentation by stating auspiciously: “The economy has been much stronger along more dimensions than I expected.” Polling: good news for the supply chain Not only did Basu's own research reveal strong construction growth in a majority of sectors, a decent number of construction job openings and wage increases, as well as supply-chain improvement and a stagnating federal rate—but webinar attendees who answered Basu's polling questions felt similarly. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of