BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    Iowa Tornado Flattens Homes, Businesses and Wind Turbines

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Canada's Ex-Attorney General Set to Testify About SNC-Lavalin Scandal

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Fee Simple!

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    American Arbitration Association Revises Construction Industry Rules and Mediation Procedures

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

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

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    A Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

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

    Picketing Threats

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    Considering Stormwater Management

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Colorado Senate Committee Approves Construction Defect Bill

    Construction-Industry Clients Need Well-Reasoned and Clear Policies on Recording Zoom and Teams Meetings

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

    Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower
    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

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    November 30, 2020 —
    Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    May 18, 2011 —

    It takes more than a hard hat, but safety checks, a good policy and a smart contract might save you some problems.If you are a general contractor, you will want to pay close attention to this article. A new Washington appellate decision showcases a general contractor’s liability to subcontractors who are injured on the job, when security barriers fail. But can a general limit this liability? Will its contract help?

    In Wrought Corporation, Inc., Appellant V. Mario Interiano (quick note: this opinion is unpublished, but we are here to talk about an issue that was not determined on appeal – WISHA compliance), a subcontractor was injured when a security barrier failed and he fell into an elevator shaft.

    A jury awarded a $1.56 million verdict against the general contractor, and the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the general contractor has a non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973, codified under RCW 49.17 (WISHA).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    January 29, 2024 —
    Beginning on January 22, 2024, in compliance with President Biden’s February 4, 2022 Executive Order, 14603, federal construction projects with a total estimated cost of $35 million are required to utilize a project labor agreement (“PLA”) unless the contracting agency grants an exception. The Federal Register estimates that this rule will impact approximately 119 IDIQ contracts each year; these contracts have an average award value of about $114 million. The White House claims the PLAs will improve projects by:
    • Eliminating project delays from labor unrest, such as strikes;
    • Creating dispute resolution procedures and cooperation for labor-management disputes, such as those over safety;
    • Including provisions “to support workers from underserved communities and small businesses”;
    • Helping to create a steady pipeline of workers for federal projects; and
    • Promoting competition on government contracts so that all builders, even those who are non-union, can bid on jobs that require a PLA.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com

    Intel's $20B Ohio 'Mega-Site' is Latest Development in Chip Makers' Rush to Boost US Production

    January 24, 2022 —
    Intel’s recently announced Ohio chip manufacturing complex could begin construction by the end of this year, setting the stage for a long-term, multibillion-dollar development effort many experts have likened to building a small city from scratch. 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

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    April 06, 2011 —

    On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.

    The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.

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

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

    September 07, 2017 —
    Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act

    February 14, 2022 —
    On December 31, 2021, New York enacted the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (“CIDA”), requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs with “complete” information for any insurance policy through which a judgment could be satisfied, within sixty (60) days after serving an answer. The stated goal is to reduce delay tactics by compelling disclosures of all policies implicated by a claim as well as other claims, contracts, or agreements that may deplete available coverage or residual limits of policies that have already been eroded by other payments. The impact of CIDA’s disclosure requirements may be scaled back by proposed amendments currently pending before the New York state legislature. 1. What does CIDA Require? CIDA requires the automatic disclosure of insurance information to plaintiffs. New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) 3101(f) permits civil discovery of the contents of existing insurance agreements by which an insurer may be liable for all or part of a judgment. However, CIDA amends the CPLR to mandate that defendants must automatically disclose the following information in all pending cases starting March 1, 2022, or within sixty (60) days of filing an answer to a complaint going forward:
    • Complete copy of all insurance policies that are available to satisfy all or part of a potential judgment.
      • This includes Primary, Excess, and Umbrella policies.
    • The relevant applications for insurance.
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy Chicago’s Willis Tower, the second-tallest building in the U.S., and plans to upgrade the retail and observatory space in a bet on growth in the city. The price was $1.3 billion, a record for a Chicago office building, according to Blackstone executives. The sellers of the 110-story skyscraper, formerly known as Sears Tower, are a group including New York-based investors Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and American Landmark Properties Ltd. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
    Ms. Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net