BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    Texas Allows Wide Scope for Certificate of Merit

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Empowering Success: The Advantages of Female Attorneys in Construction Defect Law

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

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

    ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Announces Winners of 2021 AEI Professional Project Award

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    The Administrative Procedure Act and the Evolution of Environmental Law

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Kentucky Supreme Court Creates New “Goldilocks Zone” to Limit Opinions of Biomechanical Experts

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    Home Prices on the Rise

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power
    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

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    March 14, 2018 —
    Alene Tchekmedyian’s LA times article “Storm triggers evacuations in Santa Barbara County: 'Don't be fooled into thinking that this can’t happen again',” warns of the deadly potential of mudslides following the devastation that occurred in January that caused 21 fatalities and damaged homes in Montecito. Debris flow could be triggered by rainfall rates predicted to exceed half and inch per hour. In some areas as much as seven-tenths of an inch of rain per hour are possible because of a chance of thunderstorms. Mandatory evacuations began Monday to protect residents from the fast-moving storm that is predicted to be worse than January’s. Santa Barbara county officials asked that people help spread the word of the evacuation to everyone in their community. They also created an interactive map to help residents determine their risk level. Matilija Canyon and North Fork in Ventura County are under voluntary evacuation orders. Areas at the highest risk include Thomas, Sherpa, and Whittier burn areas. Residents can find shelter at the Goleta Valley Community Center at 5679 Hollister Avenue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    January 13, 2014 —
    Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation may be filing a suit against TimberSIL, a wood manufacturer, as reported by WRAL. The foundation built 100 new homes in the 9th Ward of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and used the TimberSIL wood in 30 of the homes for decks and stairs. Make It Right spokeswoman Taylor Royle told Richard Thompson of WRAL that they chose TimberSIL because of the absence of chemicals, which will allow the wood to be mulched and composted after it has served its purpose. However, Royle claimed that the wood has begun to rot “despite being guaranteed for 40 years,” according to WRAL. She further alleged that the manufacturer failed to respond to any of the foundation’s attempts to discuss reimbursement of their costs under the forty year product warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    February 07, 2014 —
    Casper, Wyoming Councilman Craig Hedquist—who is also owner of Hedquist Construction—has been “accused of violating state and local conflict-of-interest laws,” according to the Star-Tribune. In response, Hedquist “is threatening a lawsuit against City Manager John Patterson, the city of Casper and ‘possibly others,’ according to a letter obtained by the Star-Tribune.” The letter, which was sent to City Attorney William Luben by Hedquist attorney John Robinson, “demands the city preserve, from Aug. 1, 2012, on, all records of communication and consultation with attorneys and investigators, along with minutes, notes, recordings, executive sessions and digital data regarding Hedquist and Hedquist Construction.” City Manager John Patterson told the Star-Tribune that “he was unaware of the letter and didn't know what the lawsuit might be about.” Hedquist maintains that there was never a conflict of interest: “The general and expected practice for the Casper City Council members is to not vote on matters in which a council member may have a personal interest and record this recusal in the public record,” Hedquist said, as reported by the Star-Tribune. “I have done this on all contract matters regarding Hedquist Construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    February 21, 2013 —
    In a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.” This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
    mann@hlmrlaw.com

    Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

    November 18, 2024 —
    When you enter into a contract with a homebuilder, particularly a tract homebuilder, please consider two things when it comes to dispute resolution: (1) your purchase-and-sale agreement likely contains an arbitration provision, and (2) your limited warranty agreement you get in connection with closing likely also reinforces the arbitration provision, especially with warranty claims governed by the limited warranty agreement. This dispute resolution is important because it means the homebuilder wants disputes resolved through the arbitration process and NOT through the litigation process (where the nature of disputes and allegations are public). Look, there are pros and cons with arbitration, no different than litigation. Arbitrating a dispute is not necessarily a bad thing, and with certain disputes, ideal. There is no right to appeal in arbitration, but the dispute should resolve itself quicker than litigation, and you’ll have more control over the decision maker, i.e., the arbitrator. 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

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    September 11, 2023 —
    Thanks to the SBA’s November 17, 2022 adjustments to the size standards and monetary thresholds, a number of construction contractors will be able to retain their “small” status, and more contractors may benefit from federal assistance, programs, and contracts earmarked for “small” concerns. In the SBA’s view, small businesses should not lose their “small” status due solely to price level increases rather than from increases in business activity. It is anticipated that federal agencies may choose to set aside more construction contracts for competition among small businesses given the greater number of businesses that may be deemed “small” as a result of the SBA’s recent rule. In light of this, small construction contractors should consider whether it is prudent to register or update their existing profiles in the System for Award Management (SAM) to participate in federal contracting. The SBA’s Statutory Mandate The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA and justified the agency’s existence on the grounds that small businesses are essential to the maintenance of the free enterprise system. The congressional intent was to assist small businesses as a means to deter monopoly and oligarchy formation within all industries and the market failures caused by the elimination or reduction of competition in the marketplace. Congress delegated to the SBA the responsibility to establish size standards to ensure that only small businesses were provided SBA assistance. Since that time, the SBA has analyzed various economic factors, such as each industry’s overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, to set its size standards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hanna Lee Blake, Watt Tieder
    Ms. Blake may be contacted at hblake@watttieder.com

    Landlord Duties of Repair and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

    February 10, 2020 —
    A recent case from Division I Washington Court of Appeals addressed both a landlord’s duties of repair and maintenance and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in commercial leases. Votiv, Inc. v. Bay Vista Owner LLC, No. 78289-4-I, 2019 WL 4419446 (Wash. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2019). The Plaintiff in that case leased an office space in a mixed-use residential/office/commercial building in Seattle. Although the ownership groups of the various portions of the building were each separate, the entire building was managed by defendant Bay Vista Owner LLC (“BVO”), that was also the Plaintiff’s landlord. There was a need to replace a deteriorating roof membrane to repair water intrusion into the building. The work involved significant demolition on the roof surface over the premises that Votiv, Inc. (“Votiv”), a music/media company, leased on the top floor. The repair work was done primarily during business hours causing significant disturbance to Votiv’s business operations. Votiv sued BVO and other defendants for, among other things, nuisance, breach of lease, constructive eviction, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The trial court denied Votiv’s claim for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    June 21, 2021 —
    In the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.” 5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com