BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


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

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

    Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Constructing a New American Dream

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

    Assessments Underway After Hurricane Milton Rips Off Stadium Roof, Snaps Crane Boom in Florida

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    How the Parking Garage Conquered the City

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens
    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

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    February 04, 2014 —
    Midview Local Schools Board of Education in Grafton, Ohio, “filed a lawsuit asking Lorain County Common Pleas Court to order the Ohio School Facilities Commission to help pay for repairs on three new schools,” according to The Morning Journal. Scott Goggin, Midview’s Superintendent, told The Morning Journal: “Water-stained ceilings and weeping windows in three new elementary schools, built with financial help and cooperation of the OSFC Expedited Local Partnership Program, irritated the district for months.” “The lawsuit,” as reported by The Morning Journal “claimed other school districts received financial help from the state when correcting repairs to their schools built through the same program.” Furthermore, the lawsuit stated that “OSFC failed to assess the total classroom facilities needs of the school district, and to share the costs of repairing defects.” The Morning Journal reported, “The lawsuit asks for restitution of the state’s share of correcting the construction defects, the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorney’s fees, and further relief the court decides is just and fair.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    January 16, 2024 —
    Recent decisions by the Seventh Circuit and the Eight Circuit have addressed the scope of protection afforded to architectural works under copyright law. The Seventh Circuit case of Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., 994 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2021), took a somewhat narrow view of the copyright protection afforded to the design of an “affordable, multipurpose, suburban, single-family home.” In Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., 9 F.4th 803 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2888, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1103 (2022) the Eight Circuit held that the publication of floor plans of a house in a real estate listing was not protected from claims of copyright infringement. Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., involved a plaintiff that the court described as holding registered copyrights in thousands of floor plans for suburban, single-family homes that are basic schematic designs, largely conceptual in nature, and depict layouts for one- and two-story single-family homes that include the typical rooms: a kitchen, a dining area, a great room, a few bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry area, a garage, stairs, assorted closets, etc. The court described the plaintiff as a “copyright troll” and noted that litigation proceeds had become the principal revenue stream for the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued a contractor and related businesses contending hat the defendants had infringed plaintiff’s copyrighted floor plans. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
    Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

    OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

    October 16, 2018 —
    In the wake of a recent rise in fatal trenching cave-ins, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has begun a targeted education and enforcement program to try to reverse the trend. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    January 21, 2015 —
    In a lengthy and somewhat detailed decision, the California Court of Appeal for First District, in Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., Case No. A138825 (December 22, 2014), held that a public entity could unilaterally withdraw retention funds during a pending legal dispute without the court first finding that the contractor had defaulted on the public works project. Background In 2008, general contractor S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (“S.J. Amoroso”) entered into a construction contract with the Pittsburg Unified School District (“District”) for the reconstruction and modernization of a high school in Pittsburg, California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    February 28, 2013 —
    The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is seeking to be removed from a construction defect suit filed by Aspen homeowners. APCHA claims that it should not be a party to the suit, since it had nothing to do with the development of the Burlingame Ranch community. Responsibility should instead, according to the agency, rest with the City of Aspen. APCHA’s role was to sell the homes to individuals whom it had verified were eligible to purchase affordable housing. Tom McCabe, the director of APCHA said that “APCHA has no part in the building of housing anymore, and we haven’t for a long time.” Chris Rhody, who represents the Burlingame homeowners, feels that APCHA should be involved. The homeowners are alleging that construction defects, including cracked exterior siding, are the result of faulty materials and improper installation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    May 03, 2018 —
    Want to exchange your mouse ears for a baseball cap? The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are home May 13th through the 20th. See the Angels play Houston on the 16th or Tampa Bay on the 17th or 18th. The House of Blues of Anaheim has moved out of Downtown Disney. Concerts you may want to attend there include VHS Collection on 5/16 at 7pm, Party Like It’s 1999! A Prince Tribute Party at 7pm on 5/18 or Life of Agony also at 5/18 at 7pm. If you’re still in town on Saturday, 5/19, you can check out School of Rock Tustin at 10am. Soulfly & Nile will be playing at the City National Grove of Anaheim on Friday, 5/18 at 6:30pm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    September 20, 2021 —
    Subcontractors have gotten accustomed to incorporation clauses in their contracts. While an incorporation clause can incorporate any document, most typically, it’s the prime contract between the general contractor and the project owner. Subcontractors will sometimes even accept these documents sight unseen which can be a recipe for disaster. But not in the next case. In Remedial Construction Services, LP v. AECOM, Inc., Case No. B303797 (June 15, 2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor was bound to an arbitration provision contained in a prime contract that was incorporated by reference into the subcontractor’s contract. In this case, it was the prime contractor who was in for a surprise. The Remedial Construction Case In 2015, Shell Oil Products US, LLC entered into a prime contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for the demolition, remediation and restoration of the Gaviota oil terminal in Goleta, California. AECOM in turn entered into a subcontract with Remedial Construction Services, LP to perform portions of the work. When AECOM refused to pay Remedial for delay costs asserted by Remedial, Remedial filed suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    February 25, 2014 —
    Last week, the California appellate courts decided two cases with ramifications under the Right to Repair Act. The first case, Burch, addresses whether the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for the homeowner. The second case, KB Home, addresses a situation where a homeowner or the homeowner's insurer fails to follow the procedures under the Right to Repair Act. Last August, the Fourth Appellate District announced its decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 holding that SB 800 is not a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in situations where defects cause actual damage. Many lawyers believed that Liberty Mutual would be a one-off because of its facts – it was a subrogation case brought by an insurance company. So much for that. Now the Second Appellate District is getting into the act. In Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., the Second Appellate District overturned an order granting summary adjudication in favor of a developer, general contractor, and their respective owners, in a construction defect action brought by a residential homeowner. The trial court found that the Right to Repair Act precluded the homeowner’s negligence and implied warranty claims but the Court of Appeal reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of