BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

    Appetite for Deconstruction

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

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

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Construction Termination Issues Part 6: This is the End (Tips for The Design Professional)

    Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

    Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Effective July 1, 2022, Contractors Will be Liable for their Subcontractor’s Failure to Pay its Employees’ Wages and Benefits

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    Public Housing Takes Priority in Biden Spending Bill

    Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

    Houston’s High Housing Demand due to Employment Growth
    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

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    May 04, 2020 —
    What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1. This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters. Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner. 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

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

    McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

    AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

    She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

    Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    April 01, 2015 —
    On March 18th, following a lengthy hearing with testimony and questioning for and against Senate Bill 15-177, the Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee voted 6 to 2 to refer the bill, with new amendments, to the full Senate. While the main points of the bill remain strongly intact (check here for Senate Bill 177’s particulars), bill sponsors Senators Scheffler and Ulibarri offered four amendments, designed to bring additional compromise and clarity to the bill. The committee ultimately adopted these amendments, described below. Amendment 16 removed a prior prohibition in the bill that would have prevented attorneys from assisting in the preparation of the notice required to be provided to all homeowners before the commencement of a construction defect claim. Amendment 19 complemented 16 by providing further clarification regarding the contents and specificities required in said notice, including a disclosure of projected attorneys’ fees, costs, duration, and financial impact of pursuing construction defect claims. Amendment 17 permitted homeowners to approve the pursuit of construction defect claims through written consent. Lastly, Amendment 18 provided clarification regarding the bill’s requirement that mediators and arbitrators be selected and approved through mutual agreement of the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Lindenschmidt may be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    February 22, 2018 —
    Sales of previously owned U.S. homes unexpectedly fell in January to a four-month low, indicating a shortage of available properties is increasingly hindering the real-estate industry, a National Association of Realtors report showed Wednesday. Sales growth is limited by an acute shortage of inventory, which is pushing up home prices faster than wage growth. The group noted that property prices have jumped 41 percent over the past five years, while wages have gained 12 percent. If the current pace of sales continues -- which NAR doesn’t anticipate -- purchases would be lower than in 2017. At the same time, steady hiring and elevated confidence to make large purchases, as well as tax cuts that are boosting Americans’ take-home pay, are expected to sustain demand for housing in much of the nation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    April 01, 2014 —
    The city of Swartz Creek, Michigan alleged that Slagter Construction’s work on “Texas-style arches along a new bridge” was “terrible” and doesn’t “match up to what the company promised when it took the job to build the $20,000 walkways that include the arches,” reported M Live. However, Slagter Construction “maintains its repairs were adequate and claims in a letter to the state that the issue shouldn't resolved by local officials who have ‘no formal training or education on these matters.’” According to M Live, “[t]he two sides are set to meet on May 5 with MDOT officials on May 5 in Bay City for arbitration.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Get Creative to Solve Your Construction Company's Staffing Challenges

    February 25, 2024 —
    Construction projects are on the rise due to a generational investment in infrastructure spending. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed by Congress in August 2021 includes around $550 billion in new federal investment in America’s roads and bridges, water infrastructure and more to be allocated over the next five years. Because of the influx of federal funds for infrastructure, construction firms that previously focused on local, private sector clients are incentivized to pursue public projects in other states and regions. There are a couple of bumps in the road, however. Payroll becomes more complex when you’re paying across multiple jurisdictions and at different pay rates, and reporting requirements for government work make managing projects and controlling costs trickier. Add to this the changes in the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage rules which went into effect on October 23, 2023. To capture this business and make it worthwhile, construction professionals need technology built specifically for the industry. Reprinted courtesy of Kit Dickinson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judge Gives Cintra Bid Protest of $9B Md. P3 Project Award New Life

    March 21, 2022 —
    The Maryland Dept. of Transportation will have to reconsider a protest lodged by the losing bidder for the initial phase of its $9-billion Express Lanes project, according to a Feb. 17 state circuit court judge's ruing. The decision likely stalls the state's ambitious plan to add capacity along portions of the I-495/Beltway and I-270 west of Washington, DC, using a progressive public-partnership. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    September 11, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss. Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of