BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/22/24) – Federal Infrastructure Money, Hotel Development Pipelines, and Lab Space Construction

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

    2025 Construction Law Update

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    Kahana Feld Receives 2024 OCCDL Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums

    Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery

    Florida Death Toll Rises by Three, Reaching 27 as Search Resumes

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    What is Bad Faith?

    Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

    The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/21/22) – 3D Printing, Sustainable Design, and the Housing Market Correction

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats
    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

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    January 08, 2019 —
    Canada’s failure to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. over past corruption charges has probably cost the company more than C$5 billion ($3.7 billion) in lost revenue and continues to damage its reputation internationally, Chief Executive Officer Neil Bruce said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frederic Tomesco, Bloomberg

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    November 10, 2016 —
    Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The first in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses you may (or may not realize you should) be losing sleep over.
      Provision: Incorporation and Flow-Down Provisions
    • Typical Provision: “The term ‘Contract Documents’ shall include, without limitation, the Prime Contract, drawings, specifications and other agreements between Contractor and Owner, insofar as they relate in any way, directly or indirectly, to Subcontractor’s Work under this Agreement, and are hereby incorporated by reference. Subcontractor agrees to be bound to Contractor in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to Owner under the Contract Documents. Where, in the Contract Documents, reference is made to Contractor, and the work and specifications therein pertain to Subcontractor’s trade, craft, or type of work, such work or specifications shall be interpreted to apply to Subcontractor rather than Contractor.”
    • What it Means: An incorporation provision literally “incorporates” another document or documents into a contract by merely referring to them by title or description and it is not uncommon for a lower-tiered contractor to never see those documents. A flow-down provision requires a lower-tiered contractor to comply with all obligations which a higher-tiered contractor, typically a direct contractor, owes to a higher-tiered party, typically, the owner. The intent of the provision to ensure that a lower-tiered subcontractor has no greater rights against a direct contractor has against the owner.
    • What You Can Do: Lower-tiered contractors should obtain a copy of all documents to be incorporated into their contract and review them to ensure that they understand the obligations and any limitations to their rights. Lower-tiered contractors should also seek to include language requiring that a higher-tiered contractor assume toward the lower-tiered contractor all obligations and limitations on their rights that the owner assumes toward or is subject to with respect of the general contractor.
    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

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    October 26, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding of coverage for faulty workmanship allegations and bad faith by the insurer. Pulte Home Corp. v. Am Safety Indem. Co., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 748 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2017). Pulte Home Corporation was the general contractor and developer of two residential projects. American Safety issued several sequential comprehensive general liability policies to three of Pulte's subcontractors which named Pulte as an additional insured. The projects were completed by 2006. 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

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    August 16, 2021 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) applauds the U.S. Senate for passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), proving once again that the strength and reliability of our nation's infrastructure systems is an issue that unites us all. With this legislation, the federal government will restore their critical partnership with cities and states to modernize our nation's infrastructure, including transit systems, drinking water pipes, school facilities, broadband, ports, airports and more. We commend the Senate for prioritizing American communities by passing this bipartisan infrastructure legislation and urge the U.S. House of Representatives to do the same. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns

    April 25, 2023 —
    In today’s roundup, construction waxes and wanes, energy goals are set, and concerns abound for the commercial real estate market in the United States and Europe.
    • A new AI-driven real estate platform, Land on Earth, will use their ChatGPT-powered HomeMatch technology to match house hunters with their ideal properties. (Business Wire)
    • Following a strong show in February, new construction decreased in March, with an 8.8 percent decrease in permits. (Tim Smart, U.S. News)
    • The UK’s construction industry made a strong performance this winter, but strikes have offset gains, dimming hopes of economic revival. (Paul Godfrey, UPI)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    June 08, 2020 —
    A bill prohibiting the use of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners' insurance policies has been introduced before the New Jersey legislature. The bill is here. Under an anti-concurrent causation clause, the policy bars coverage if two perils (i.e., wind and water damage) contribute to a loss and one peril is excluded from coverage. For example, wind damage alone may be covered, while water damage is excluded. If both wind and water contribute to the loss, regardless of the degree to which each peril contributes, the anti-concurrent causation clause would bar coverage. New Jersey S 217 states,
    An insurer authorized to transact the business of homeowners insurance in this state shall not exclude coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for loss or damage caused by a peril insured against under the terms of the policy on the grounds that the loss or damage occurred concurrently or in any sequence with a peril not insured against under the terms of the policy. Any such provision to exclude coverage shall be void and unenforceable.
    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

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    June 28, 2021 —
    On May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.” By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    December 17, 2015 —
    According to the New York Times, a Bel Air hillside mansion in Los Angeles has outraged neighbors who refer to the unfinished, 30,000 square foot and almost 70 feet high building as “the Starship Enterprise.” Despite legal violations such as tearing down the original structure without the city’s permission, the height being twice the legal limit, and digging into the hillside though the site is an “earthquake-induced landslide area,” the case has not progressed much in four years because the actual owner is a shell company. The New York Times summarized the issues at 901 Strada Vecchia as follows: “After the unapproved teardown and leveling of the hillside, the construction team did ask permission to grade the hill but used a survey that made it appear that workers had not already removed significant loads of dirt. Then they joined two buildings that were supposed to be separate and built so high that they drastically violated the city’s height limit.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of