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


    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    The Conscious Builder – Interview with Casey Grey

    California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025

    Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

    DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    UConn’s Law-School Library Construction Case Settled for Millions

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

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

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/17/24) – Housing Inflation to Remain High, Proptech Investment to Fall and Office Vacancy Rates to Reach Peak in 2025

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Engineering Report Finds More Investigation Needed of Balconies at New Jersey Condo

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    New Home Construction Booming in Texas

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Plans Go High Tech

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014
    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

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    March 27, 2019 —
    Parol or extrinsic evidence can be used to defeat an argument that a lien is a fraudulent lien. And, just because a lien amount exceeds the total contract amount does not presumptively mean the lien is willfully exaggerated or recorded in bad faith. Finally, a ruling invalidating a construction lien can create the irreparable harm required to support a petition for writ of certiorari. All of these issues are important when dealing with and defending against a fraudulent lien and are explained in a recent case involving a dispute between an electrical subcontractor and its supplier. In Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. v. Coltin Electrical Services, LLC, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D130a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), there were various revisions to the supplier’s initial purchase order, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and a ninth-revised purchaser order was issued and accepted. The electrical subcontractor claimed that deliveries were late, unassembled, and did not include the required marking (likely the UL marking), to pass building inspections. As a result, the subcontractor withheld money from the supplier and the supplier recorded a lien in the amount of $853,773.16 and filed a foreclosure lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    June 12, 2023 —
    This is a brief roundup of recent federal court environmental and regulatory law decisions from the federal courts over the past few months, including the much anticipated ruling in Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency Last year, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision curtailing some of the EPA’s regulatory powers in the Clean Air Act in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. On May 25, 2023, the Court limited EPA’s—and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authority—under the Clean Water Act. This, too, is a major environmental ruling. The Court held that the EPA could not classify the wetlands located on the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett as “Waters of the United States” on the basis of the “significant nexus” test devised by Justice Kennedy in his separate opinion in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States. Accordingly, the Court unanimously held that their property was not subject to the EPA’s or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting and enforcement power. In 2004, the Sacketts purchased a small lot near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho, on which to build a home. As related by Justice Alito, once they began to fill in their property with dirt and rocks, they were notified by EPA that their backfilling operation violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because they were affecting protected wetlands. The Sacketts challenged this action, thus beginning a long legal battle with EPA and the federal government. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the federal government’s regulatory authority over these wetlands, holding that the CWA covers “adjacent” wetlands having a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. The Supreme Court decided that this case was suitable for determining whether the Sackett’s wetlands are “waters of the United States” and thus subject to the permitting and regulatory enforcement powers of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    January 07, 2015 —
    Indemnity obligations and additional insured coverage were at issue in Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3347 (N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014). Strauss Painting, Inc. (Strauss) contracted with the Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (the Met) to strip and repaint the rooftop steel carriage track for the opera house's automated window-washing equipment. The contract provided that Strauss would indemnify and hold the Met harmless. Exhibit D to the contract set forth three types of insurance that Strauss was to procure: (1) workers' compensation; (2) owners and contractors protective liability (OCP); and (3) comprehensive general liability. The OCP policy was to add the Met as an additional insured. Strauss failed to obtain the OCP policy. At the time it contracted with the Met, Strauss had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. The policy's additional insured endorsement (ICO form CG 20 33 07 04) stated that "an insured" included "any organization for whom Strauss is performing operations when Strauss and such organization have agreed in writing that such organization be added as an additional insured." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    July 30, 2014 —
    In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Construction Co., 986 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), Turner was the general contractor for a high rise office building constructed in New Jersey for owner GSJC. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa for the building’s exterior curtain wall which consisted of granite and glass with an attached network of decorative pipe rails. A segment of the pipe rails fell from the building onto the street. GSJC determined that a significant percentage of the pipe rail connections to the curtain wall did not conform to specifications or were defective. GSJC sued Turner and Permasteelisa in New Jersey state court for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, seeking damages for the damage to the curtain wall and the danger of additional pipe rail falling in the future. National Union, which had issued an OCIP policy for the project, defended Turner and Permasteelisa under a reservation of rights and then filed a declaratory judgment action in New York state court. The New York trial court entered judgment for National Union. On appeal, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed. As to choice of law, the court stated that “it is undisputed that the law of New Jersey governs this action, which turns on insurance policy interpretation, and that New Jersey and New York law are consistent as to the issues in dispute here.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

    November 08, 2013 —
    Toll Brothers is purchasing the home-building business of Shapell Industries for $1.6 billion. This will increase Toll Brother’s presence in California, where it has been building homes since 1994. After the acquisition, Toll Brothers will have about 9,200 lots in California, while it currently has about 4,000. Toll Brothers is not purchasing the commercial development arm of Shapell. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    July 09, 2014 —
    Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, stated that California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7031 has often been described as draconian, harsh, and unjust—but still enforceable. The section does two things: first, it “prohibits unlicensed or improperly licensed contractors from suing to recover compensation for construction work requiring a license,” and second, it “permits property owners to sue such contractors for disgorgement of all compensation paid for such work.” According to Murai, the “strict enforcement of Section 7031” is thought to ensure “that contractors meet the minimum qualifications necessary for licensure.” Murai analyzed the case E. J. Franks Construction, Inc. v Sahota, which “carved out a limited exception to Section 7031 for contractors who form business entities and transfer their existing contractor’s license to such entities.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    January 19, 2017 —
    Sometimes you come across a head scratcher. This would be a decision that does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For instance, if you are sued and you maintain liability insurance that would potentially provide you a defense and indemnification, not notifying your insurance carrier is a head scratcher. You pay substantial dollars towards the premium of that policy. So, not then notifying your carrier about a lawsuit is a head scratcher, and I mean a head scratcher!! If you are sued, not only should the carrier be notified, but the defense of that lawsuit should be tendered to your liability carrier. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    February 21, 2022 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, three Partners have been named to the 2022 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers 2022 Super Lawyers Rising Stars Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman