BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    Shutdowns? What A Covid-19-Safe Construction Site Looks Like

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

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

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    Designing the Process to Deliver Zero-Carbon Construction – Computational Design in Practice

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Climate Disasters Are an Affordable Housing Problem

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims
    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

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    January 08, 2024 —
    Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    December 04, 2018 —
    The complaint alleged collapse, but the claimed cause of the collapse was not a covered cause under the insured's policy, mandating a dismissal of the complaint. Coonce v. CSSA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25010 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2018). The ceiling in the insured's living and dining areas caved in. An engineering survey determined that the nails used in the construction had failed to hold. The insured made a claim on her policy issued by CSAA. Coverage was denied and the insured sued. The insured was given two opportunities to amend her complaint by the district court, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was eventually granted. 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

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    December 09, 2011 —

    The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has ruled that condominium association boards have a duty to “properly pursue any claims,” overturning the decision of a lower court that said that it had no legal duty to file suit. Tom Schild, writing at Marylandcondominiumlaw.net, writes about Greenstein v. Avalon Courts Six Condominium, Inc.

    In this case, the condominium board waited six years after residents complained about water intrusion problems before suing the developer. The court ruled that the suit could not be filed, as the statute of limitations was only three years. After residents were assessed for the repairs, homeowners sued the board, arguing that their delay lead to the need for the special assessment.

    After overturning the decision, the Court of Special Appeals has asked the trial court to review the negligence claim.

    Read the full story…

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

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    May 01, 2019 —
    Even as Montreal design-build giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. faces corporate bribery charges on old Libya contracts, the firm now seeks, in an April 4 federal court appeal, to reverse Canadian prosecutors’ 2018 rejection of a negotiated settlement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, ENR
    Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under Scrutiny

    May 13, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, Airbnb advocates for new short-term rental rules, the U.S. Supreme Court rules on hefty development fees, loan losses becomes a greater issue for banks, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    March 05, 2015 —
    The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien. The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge. The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective. The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility. For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner). William L. Porter of Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    November 30, 2016 —
    The Eighth Circuit recently weighed in on one of the more contentious issues in insurance coverage litigation: is faulty workmanship an occurrence? In Decker Plastics Inc. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., the Eighth Circuit ruled that, under Iowa law, faulty workmanship is an occurrence – as long as it leads to other property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    June 14, 2011 —

    I just came across a case that I think truly paints the insurance dilemma for contractors. Thanks to this recent Illinois case, I don’t have to make up any factual scenarios—so kudos to Attorney Robert Boylan for posting it.

    In reading over my RSS feeds this weekend, I noticed a great writeup on long-time blogger Josh Glazov’s Construction Law Today. Attorney Robert Boylan’s post describes a recent Illinois case where a general contractor was denied its additional insured status on a second-tier subcontractor’s insurance. The reason for the denial: the general contractor failed to procure an agreement in writing with the second-tier subcontractor, requiring it to be listed as an additional insured.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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