BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    Precast Standards' Work Under Way as Brittle Fracture Warnings Aired

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    Continuing Breach Doctrine

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

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

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

    Will AI Completely Transform Our Use of Computers?

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    ACS Obtains Overwhelming Jury Trial Victory for General Contractor Client
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

    February 06, 2023 —
    Velazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor. The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project. High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise to One-Year High

    October 22, 2014 —
    Sales of previously owned homes climbed in September to the highest level in a year, pointing to growing confidence in the U.S. economy as employment firms. Purchases advanced 2.4 percent to a 5.17 million annual rate, the National Association of Realtors reported today in Washington. Demand was up 1.9 percent compared with the same month last year before adjusting for seasonal patterns. Americans are returning to the real-estate market as employers have added 2 million workers to payrolls so far this year. Sales stand to get an additional boost in the final months of 2014 as the drop in mortgage rates caused by slowing growth in Europe and emerging nations makes properties more affordable for first-time buyers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
    Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    February 24, 2020 —
    Is the enforceability of a no-damage-for-delay provision inappropriate for resolution on a summary judgment? The recent decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Kingston Environmental Services, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc., 2019 WL 6178676 (D. Hawaii 2019), dealing with Florida law, suggests that it is inappropriate for a summary judgment resolution, particularly when there is a right to a jury trial. In this case, a prime contractor was hired on a federal construction project in Hawaii. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor and its surety under the Miller Act. Of interest, the subcontractor was seeking to recover for the costs it incurred due to construction delays. The prime contractor moved for summary judgment as to the no-damage-for-delay provision in the subcontract. The no-damages-for-delay provision read as follows (and it is a well-written no-damage-for-delay provision): The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the commencement or execution of the Work, caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether negligent or not, of the Contractor including other subcontractors or material suppliers to the Project, its agents, employees, or third parties acting on behalf of the Contractor. The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension. 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

    Leftover Equipment and Materials When a Contractor Is Abruptly Terminated

    November 06, 2023 —
    Termination for cause is costly and adversarial and has been covered in this article. But can a terminating party use equipment and tools left behind on the worksite (i.e., a crane)? The answer depends on what is in your contract. Under ConsensusDocs, a constructor must give its permission to use any equipment or supplies left at the worksite, such as a crane.[i] Moreover, the owner must indemnify the constructor for using their equipment. This makes sense because even if a constructor were appropriately terminated for cause, using their equipment and materials they no longer possess or control unfairly creates additional liability exposure. At a minimum, the owner should take on the risk of using the equipment and materials since they benefit from such use. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Perlberg, ConsensusDocs Coalition
    Mr. Perlberg may be contacted at bperlberg@ConsensusDocs.org

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    October 29, 2014 —
    The city of Worthington “is suing the architect and general contractor responsible for constructing the addition to the Worthington Community Center in 2002,” according to ThisWeek Community News. The city is demanding $1.3 million “to replace the roof on the fitness center and pool addition, which is 12 years old.” Moody-Nolan, the architect, and Apex/M&P, the general contractor, have been named as defendants in the case. According to the complaint (as reported by ThisWeek), “experts retained by the city found that the roof has failed ‘due to unknown latent design defects and construction defects that have resulted in property damage.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    January 18, 2021 —
    Withholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness. “Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available. This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    January 28, 2013 —
    Ben Kim, the former police lieutenant whose wife is one of the figures in the scheme to take over Las Vegas homeowner associations in order to profit from construction defect settlements, might face a six-month sentence in a bank fraud scheme. Mr. Kim has plead guilty in the charges that he submitted false financial documents. Others who were involved in the homeowner scandal, including Mr. Kim's wife, were also involved in this case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Taking Service Network Planning to the Next Level

    July 22, 2019 —
    Cities and municipalities are basically systems for delivering services for the benefit of their citizens. An experimental project demonstrated how improving the flow of data between these services could save a lot of time and taxpayer money. Emilia Rönkkö is an architect who worked for the Finnish city of Kuopio. Besides that, she is a Docent of Urban Planning at the University of Oulu. “In Kuopio, my job included doing architectural programming for public investments and service network reviews. More specifically, surveys about Growth and Learning Services that were focused on daycares and schools,” Rönkkö explains. “Typically, a service network review with manual data collection procedures takes place every three to five years. I and other functionaries involved in the process wondered if there might be a better, more efficient way to do the reviews.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi