BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Here's Proof Homebuilders are Betting on a Pickup in the Housing Market

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

    Singer Akon’s Multibillion-Dollar Futuristic City in Africa Gets Final Notice

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

    American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director

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

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    Appraisal Can Go Forward Prior to Resolution of Coverage Dispute

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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    Faulty Workmanship Claims Amount to Multiple Occurrences

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary
    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

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    November 27, 2023 —
    The lower court's decision finding no coverage based upon the governmental action exclusion was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois. McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling v. Pekin Ins. Co., 2023 Ill.App. LEXIS 300 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 23, 2023). McCann purchased a building to use for its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning business. The building was surrounded by two unihhabited properties which often flooded. The city determined that a building on the adjacent property had to be demolished. In the course of destruction, the McCann's building was damaged, leaving a portion of their building open to the elements. McCann sought coverage from Pekin for damage incurred in the demolition. The policy provided coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered property. Pekin denied coverage under the policy's governmental action exclusion, which provided,
    We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following: . . . c. Governmental Action Seizure or destruction of property by order of governmental authority . . .
    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

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    August 16, 2021 —
    August 10, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the U.S. Senate for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband access. “Investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs across the country, growing our national and local economies in both the short and long term,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. “The surety industry fully supports this investment and will continue to provide the essential protections necessary to support our country’s infrastructure needs through our suite of products and services.” SFAA also commends the inclusion of the Van Hollen 2354 amendment to the bill, accepted by a unanimous vote of 97-0. The amendment requires payment and performance bonds on all federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving loans and grants under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), protecting taxpayers’ dollars, ensuring project completion, protecting local small business contractors and workers, and promoting economic growth. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. https://www.surety.org/ Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    May 25, 2020 —
    Various sections of the California Civil Code, beginning with section 8000, protect the right of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry to obtain payment for work performed and materials supplied to construction projects. Under these statutes, unpaid claimants are entitled to use mechanics liens, stop payment notices and other methods to protect their right to payment. Mechanics liens allow unpaid claimants to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. Stop payment notices force the owner or the bank to set money aside to pay unpaid claimants. Article XIV of our California Constitution even elevates the mechanics lien remedy to a “constitutional right”. The system generally works well, and claimants are paid. As someone who practices and teaches construction law, I have noticed a seldom used statutory tool that seems to provide a mechanism for property owners under certain circumstances to prevent subcontractors and suppliers from imposing enforceable mechanics lien on property where work was performed. Under California Civil Code section 8520, it appears that all that an owner of property need do to avoid a mechanics lien on its property is to give a proper notice (per Civil Code section 8100 et seq.) to a person who has a mechanics lien right (a subcontractor or supplier) that the owner is invoking Civil Code section 8520 and that if the claimant is unpaid for work performed or materials supplied to the owner’s property that the claimant must either provide the owner with a stop payment notice or forfeit the right to a mechanics lien on the owner’s property. This would allow an owner to avoid a mechanics lien on its property if the claimant failed to send a stop payment notice to the owner. Providing the “notice” under Civil Code section 8100 appears to be easy. It can be sent by “registered or certified mail or by express mail or by overnight delivery by an express service carrier”. It can even be by “hand delivery”. As far as the notice itself, it would seem that it can be very simple and easily performed under the process described below, which can be implemented within the office of any owner or developer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    January 17, 2022 —
    The insurer's effort to dismiss the insured's collapse case by motion for summary judgment failed. Bitters v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228523 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2021). The insured alleged that there was a "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" to his home caused by collapse due to hidden insect damage to the foundation. The insured came home to find the floor of a bedroom dropped down to the cement slab below. He filed a claim with Nationwide, but coverage was denied. Suit was filed and Nationwide moved for summary judgment. The policy provided coverage for a sudden and accidental collapse caused by hidden insect damage. A building or part of a building was not considered in the state of collapse if it was standing, even if it was in danger of falling low or caving in. 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

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    January 26, 2016 —
    We hear all of the time how to “get to ‘yes'” and how doing so can lead to more business and of course more business leads to more profits. Purely logical, right? Without construction owners with work for general contractors to perform and general contractors hiring subcontractors to perform that work, construction grinds to a halt and clients and friends of mine in the construction industry don’t make money. For this to happen, “yes” has to happen more often than not. So, why the title of this post? Chalk it up to spending much if not all of my time as a construction attorney either anticipating or dealing with the Murphy’s Law ruled nature of the construction world or to the “Monday morning quarterback” nature of my profession, but I see numerous instances where not taking the job or signing the bad contract would have led to a better outcome than performing the work. What do I mean by this? I mean that as a construction company (particularly one that is lower down the “payment chain” and therefore less in control of the flow of money), you need to carefully evaluate not only the contract presented, but whether you get a good feeling about the party with whom you are contracting. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    City of Seattle Temporarily Shuts Down Public Works to Enforce Health and Safety Plans

    April 13, 2020 —
    The Governor’s Stay Home, Stay Safe Order mandates that essential businesses must establish and implement social distancing and sanitation measures established by OSHA and the WA State DOH: With construction work continuing on essential construction projects, some jurisdictions, such as the City of Seattle, are taking additional steps to enforce and oversee the establishment and implementation of updated Health and Safety plans on construction projects. The City of Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan announced yesterday a two-day temporary suspension of Public Works construction beginning on Thursday, April 9th, to conduct health and safety training for workers and update protocols. The announcement may be viewed here. The City of Seattle also sent a letter in this regard and asked all contractors and owners provide project-specific responses to the Washington Building Trades COVID-19 Construction Industry Emergency Requirements. Herein are the links to the letter and attached requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at masaki.yamada@acslawyers.com

    Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region

    November 20, 2013 —
    There was an increase in the number of building permits issued in Las Cruces, New Mexico through the first ten months of 2013, but the 2,162 permits represent only a minimal increase over last year’s 2,158 permits. To make matters worse for building suppliers and workers, builders can “pull all the permits for a subdivision at one time but might not start some of those for six months,” said Lee Rawson, the owner of Rawson Builders Supply. For a comparison, during the building boom of 2006, Las Cruces issued 3,529 building permits. The values are down too. Although fewer permits were issued in 2012, their valuation was $147 million, while the marginally larger number in 2013 is worth only $128 million. As a result, the area is losing skilled labor. After 25 consecutive months of declining construction, workers are leaving the construction industry. Mr. Rawson noted that “you can’t just go find that skilled labor, it doesn’t exist.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    December 01, 2017 —
    The statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998). This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com