BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    Surge in Home Completions Tamps Down Inflation as Fed Meets

    If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking #4 in Orange County Business Journal’s 2023 Book of Lists for Law Firms!

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    Coronavirus Is Starting to Slow the Solar Energy Revolution

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2021 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

    Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    At Least 23 Dead as Tornadoes, Severe Storms Ravage South

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    What The U.S. Can Learn from China to Bring Its Buildings to New Heights

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns
    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. Drawing 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

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    July 09, 2019 —
    The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019. Bills Becoming Law in 2019 HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019. This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond. (1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions: The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed; The materials furnished or to be furnished; The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due. A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage. (2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

    The G2G Mid-Year Roundup (2022)

    July 03, 2022 —
    Our mid-year roundup highlights the top-read Gravel2Gavel posts from 2022 so far. Our authors provided deep industry insights and summarized hot topics that addressed various legal implications and disruptions that affected the market, ranging from topics like investing in real estate metaverse to the clean hydrogen transition. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    January 17, 2014 —
    The City of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against Tutor-Saliba Corp. and O&G Industries Inc., which had created a joint venture to rebuild Runway 25L at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), according to Brian Sumers writing for the Daily Breeze. However, lawyers for the construction companies are alleging that the lawsuit was filed a year too late: “…the complaint’s first four causes of action against Joint Venture are indisputably barred under California Law,” lawyers from Castle & Associates claimed. This news came soon after a plane blew a tire on the same runway involved in the lawsuit, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The blown out tire may not be related to the alleged construction defects: “The runway is usable,” Nancy Castles, spokeswoman for Los Angeles World airports told the Los Angeles Times. Castles explained that “the lawsuit is about ‘deterioration’ and that at some point the runway will need to be rebuilt, but that time is not now.” Read the full story at the Daily Breeze... Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    May 10, 2017 —
    My friend and colleague, Chris McCabe, recently published an opinion piece on Philly.com concerning the May 16 ballot question that asks Philadelphia voters to approve a change in the way Philadelphia awards public contracts. Currently, Philadelphia, like all municipalities in Pennsylvania, uses an objective lowest responsible bidder standard in the award of public contracts. Under this approach, public contracts must be awarded to a bidder that responds to all of the criteria of the request for bids and offers the lowest price. Under this traditional approach the award of public contracts is completely transparent. The May 16 ballot initiative seeks to change this. If approved, Philadelphia could award public contracts using a host of subjective factors. What those factors would be are unknown because the policies are not yet written. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    August 27, 2014 —
    The earthquake that struck northern California yesterday will lead to economic losses of as much as $4 billion, fueled by damaged wineries and shuttered businesses that rely on tourists. Insurers will probably cover about $2.1 billion, according to an estimate from Kinetic Analysis Corp., which projected total losses of about twice that sum. Costs borne by the industry may be limited because many homeowners don’t have earthquake coverage, according to the Insurance Information Institute. “The main source of claims could well be commercial claims, those coming from wineries and vineyards and other commercial interests,” Robert Hartwig, the institute’s president, said in an interview today. “It will take a while for the business owners to sort this out.” Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hart may be contacted at dahart@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart, Bloomberg

    Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

    August 26, 2024 —
    In what is believed to be a groundbreaking new precedent, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Los Angeles litigation team has obtained a landmark ruling on behalf of residents in the “Portuguese Bend” neighborhood of Palos Verdes, California. Congratulations to Partner Michael D’Andrea and Senior Associate Shelly Mosallaei in receiving this result for our clients. Plaintiff, a real estate developer, sued a number of local residents and property owners, including our client, alleging that their failure to address landslides and geological disturbances around Plaintiff’s property constituted a legal trespass and nuisance. Plaintiff alleged that its plans to develop multiple lots in Palos Verdes was thwarted because Defendant’s soil and land encroached onto Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff’s suit against multiple residents created an uproar in the community regarding who was ultimately responsible (if anyone) for natural soils movement that has plagued this neighborhood for years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP