BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building envelope 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


    Harmon Tower Case Settled Prior to Start of Trial

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

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Kahana Feld Named to the Orange County Register 2024 Top Workplaces List

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Around the State

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

    When OSHA Cites You

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020
    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

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    April 19, 2022 —
    Crest Nicholson Plc intends to sign the building safety pledge set up in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire in 2017 to improve standards that may cost the U.K. developer as much as 120 million pounds ($157 million). The company’s best estimate of further liability as a result of the pledge would be 80 million pounds to 120 million pounds, according to a statement Tuesday. Since 2019, Crest Nicholson has recorded 47.8 million pounds of net charges from obligations imposed after the fire at Grenfell Tower in London in which flammable cladding materials contributed to the deaths of 72 people. The Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced in January the government’s intention to increase the legal obligation on developers to fix potentially dangerous buildings. Since then, Crest Nicholson has engaged in “intensive dialogue” with the government about the new guidelines, resulting in the decision to sign the pledge, the firm said in the statement. The new restrictions will be enacted in law through proposed amendments to the Building Safety Bill that is currently passing through parliament. Crest Nicholson is currently considering whether any further regulatory approvals are required in respect of the proposed laws, according to the statement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Hesketh, Bloomberg

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.

    Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    July 05, 2023 —
    A federal judge sentenced a contractor’s former superintendent June 20 for misleading officials about the source of fill and quality of contaminated fill used on the $410 million Route 6/10 interchange project in Rhode Island. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    June 05, 2017 —
    It is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract. California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
    1. Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
    2. Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
    3. Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
    4. Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
    Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017 Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure. As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows: (e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor (1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure. This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work. Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    May 10, 2022 —
    The White House Council on Environmental Quality has finalized a regulation that restores basic project environmental review practices that were in place prior to changes made during the Trump administration. The rule is the first of two that will have the Biden administration’s stamp on how such reviews are done under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for major federal construction projects. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

    September 03, 2015 —
    In Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015 S.O.S. 13–56099 – filed August 27, 2015), the Ninth Circuit joined the shortlist of Circuit Courts to hold that sanctions for bad-faith litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 can only be sought against individual attorneys and not law firms. Section 1927 authorizes sanctions against “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States … who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously….” On behalf of the client, an attorney with Kaass Law filed a complaint against ten different defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, which moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6). Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the initial complaint; Wells Fargo Bank filed a notice of non-opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher B. Lloyd, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr.Lloyd may be contacted at clloyd@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    November 25, 2024 —
    San Francisco, Calif. (October 31, 2024) - After a ten-day jury trial in San Francisco Superior Court, Partner Alex Graft recently secured a defense verdict in a legal malpractice action arising out of underlying litigation with the claimants’ homeowners association. The claimants alleged his client attorneys negligently advised them that the terms of the settlement agreement would result in the creation of a so-called independent board of directors for the homeowners association. It did not come to fruition. After the attorneys withdrew, they sued for their outstanding fees, which elicited a cross-complaint alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    January 24, 2014 —
    Engineers spotted “hundreds” of cracks in welds on parts produced for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 2008 and were encouraged to stay quiet rather than delay the $6.4 billion project, according to a California Senate committee report. James Merrill, then a senior engineer with a quality assurance company known as Mactec, told Senate investigators that his complaints about work done at Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. (900947), known as ZPMC, were rebuffed by managers of the California Department of Transportation as “too rigorous,” according to the report released yesterday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg News
    Mr. Nash may be contacted at jnash24@bloomberg.net