BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

    Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Department Of Labor Recovers $724K In Back Wages, Damages For 255 Workers After Phoenix Contractor Denied Overtime Pay, Falsified Records

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Defining Construction Defects

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/03/21)

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    U.S. Judge Says Wal-Mart Must Face Mexican-Bribe Claims

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Limitations: There is a Point of No Return
    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

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    December 11, 2013 —
    Macomb Township in southeast Michigan has had $122 million in new development in 2013, all of which helped the region reach its highest building levels since 2007. The wider area saw 398 permits issued for single-family homes in the last twelve months, fifty-two more than in the twelve months prior. “The improvement is economically driven,” said Michael Stoskofa, the CEO of the Home Builders Association of Southeast Michigan. As employment improves in the area, “more people are willing and able to purchase a home,” he said. Home inventory in the area is also at a record low. As a result, projects that were put on hold in 2008 are active again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    July 26, 2017 —
    The federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowners' collapse claim because the collapse provisions were deleted from the policy. Gueng-Ho Kim v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97871 (D. Conn. June 26, 2017). The homeowners purchased their home in 2004. They also purchased a homeowners policy from State Farm. In the policy, State Farm deleted the additional coverage for collapse.Also deleted from the policy was language excluding coverage for "collapse, except as specifically provided in Section I - Additional Coverages, Collapse." The homeowners discovered a problem with the property's foundation when they attempted to sell the house in 2014. The homeowners hired an engineer who found that the interior and exterior foundation had numerous spider-web cracks and the foundation walls in several locations bowed inward by as much as one and a half inches. 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

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    May 23, 2022 —
    A new and unexpected obstacle to President Joe Biden’s green ambitions has emerged: a tiny solar-power company based in San Jose. Auxin Solar Inc., which accounts for all of 2% of U.S. solar-module manufacturing, recently persuaded the Commerce Department to open a potentially devastating trade inquiry. After the U.S. imposed anti-dumping measures against Chinese solar-cell and module manufacturers just over a decade ago, alternative suppliers sprang up in South Korea and Southeast Asia. Auxin now contends that those other Asian suppliers are effectively used by Chinese companies to circumvent the anti-dumping measures. If Commerce ultimately agrees, then more than four-fifths of solar-module imports to the U.S. and half of all cells could suddenly be subject to steep tariffs, perhaps levied retroactively. The Solar Energy Industries Association warns of dire consequences for U.S. solar-power development — critical to Biden’s decarbonization targets — claiming that some suppliers are already backing away because of the risk. Heavyweight NextEra Energy Inc. warns that the investigation may delay 2.8 gigawatts of projects slated for this year. Timothy Fox of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based analysis firm, says Commerce’s “structural” inclination toward protectionism may lead it to concur with Auxin. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Liam Denning, Bloomberg

    Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

    May 10, 2022 —
    Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    May 03, 2021 —
    As those who read my “musings” here at this construction law blog are well aware, the topic of Virginia mechanic’s liens is one that is much discussed. From the basic statutory requirements to the more technical aspects of these tricky beasts. One aspect of mechanic’s liens that I have yet to discuss in detail it how these liens attach in the situation where the contractor does work for a lessee and not for the owner of the underlying fee interest in the property. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court, McCarthy Building Companies Inc. v. TPE Virginia Land Holdings LLC, discusses the interaction of Va. Code 43-20, work on a leasehold, and parties necessary to any litigation relating to a lien for the work on that leasehold. The basic facts, outlined more thoroughly in the linked opinion, are these. MBC provided certain work to TPE Kentuck Solar, LLC on property leased from TPE Virginia Land Holdings, LLC. The lease was for a fixed term and for a fixed amount regardless of the work performed at the property. MBC was unpaid by the Kentuck entity and then recorded a lien on the property and then sued to enforce that lien and for unjust enrichment against TPE Land Holdings. TPE Land Holding filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien and unjust enrichment counts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    September 06, 2023 —
    Congratulations to the ten Payne & Fears attorneys included in the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers® In America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Attorneys have been recognized in the following practice areas: Best Lawyers in America (2024) Irvine, CA Employment Law – Management Labor Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Jeffrey K. Brown Daniel F. Fears Commercial Litigation Litigation – Real Estate Daniel M. Livingston Thomas L. Vincent Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    April 15, 2015 —
    In September 2013, Hawaiian Electric Co. told thousands of customers they couldn’t connect their new solar panels to its distribution grid. In some neighborhoods, HECO said, its system couldn’t absorb any more unused energy from home solar arrays. The moratorium, which lasted 13 months, made Hawaii a central battleground in the effort by utilities to control the rapid growth of independent solar companies across the U.S. And it was a big deal to people such as Robert Gould, a retired Northwest Airlines pilot living near Honolulu. He’d just paid $53,000 to have solar panels installed. Gould and other customers protested loudly to state officials. They finally got help from Lyndon Rive, the CEO of SolarCity. The San Mateo, California, company is the biggest installer of rooftop solar panels in the U.S. and has 10,000 Hawaiian customers, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its May issue. Rive studied the situation and zeroed in on a key fact: HECO had never directly measured how much solar its grid could handle, relying on computer simulations instead. “Because the technology is brand-new, no one had ever done this in the field before,” says Colton Ching, HECO’s vice president for energy delivery. Reprinted courtesy of John Lippert, Bloomberg and Christopher Martin, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of