BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    More Broad-Based Expansion for Construction Industry Expected in 2015

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/1/24) – IMF’s Data on Housing, REITs Versus Private Real Estate, and Suburban Versus Urban Office Property Market

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

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

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

    Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Judge Halts Sale of Brazilian Plywood

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service

    Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025

    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI
    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

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

    The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

    The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

    The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

    The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    November 09, 2020 —
    The ballot initiative, Proposition 24, has been passed by voters in yesterday’s election. What does this proposition entail and how does it impact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)? What’s Covered in Proposition 24 - The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) The CPRA, among other things, does the following:
    • Revises the existing CCPA to expand consumer rights with respect to personal information and sensitive personal information;
    • Creates a new agency responsible for enforcing the CPRA; and
    • Increases penalties for violations related to the personal information of children under the age of 16.
    As for additional consumer rights, the CPRA offers consumers the opportunity to request a correction of inaccurate personal information. In addition, a consumer may direct a company to “limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information” to a use that an average customer would expect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    February 19, 2024 —
    We are pleased to announce that Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance coverage partner Andrea DeField was named to the South Florida Business Journal’s 2024 list of Influential Business Women. The award celebrates 25 women who have a strong record of leadership, performance and innovation in their industry, as well as meaningful community involvement. This distinction is well-deserved given Andi’s leadership in the cyber insurance space, contribution to the firm’s pro bono efforts, and longstanding record of community involvement in South Florida. Andi and the other honorees will be featured in the March 15 special issue of the South Florida Business Journal introducing the Influential Business Women of 2024. Congratulations Andi! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    November 01, 2021 —
    Environmental Justice, as an urgent policy priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, “the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies, and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations.” Executive Order 12898 supplements Executive Order 12550 (1980), whose primary legal basis was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. For example, in Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination; which is very difficult to prove. In addition, the Court ruled in Sandoval, that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has for many years operated an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints (see 40 CFR Part 7). The process is complex and the results—usually whether a state agency has failed to uphold Title VI—have generally been unsatisfactory. To be successful, many proponents of environmental justice believe that a statutory foundation must be established, and significant efforts have been made to do so. 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

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    February 26, 2015 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals threw a wrench into the calculation of your warranty earlier this year in Adams v. Manchester Park, LLC and Southfork Homes, Inc. In that case, the court found that the statute of limitations for a warranty claim started running after the homebuilder’s warranty expired. So, the four year breach of warranty statute of limitations did not begin until after the one year homebuilder warranty expired. In this case, the homeowner purchased a home from Southfork in September, 2007. The purchase agreement provided for a one-year New Home Limited Warranty which covered material defects in workmanship and materials. The homeowner noticed cracks in the drywall and problems with windows within 6 months of the purchase. The builder told the homeowner to keep track of all the problems and they would be fixed at the yearend walk through. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    The Power of Team Bonding: Transforming Workplaces for the Better

    June 10, 2024 —
    The number of civil Complaints filed in California has been steadily rising over the last few years. When employees struggle daily to make a dent in what seems as an insurmountable to-do list, taking time away from work to chat with coworkers about their weekends or the latest Netflix drop seems counterintuitive. Yet recent studies suggest that taking even 30 minutes away from your workday to engage in team bonding has lasting benefits. Investing in team bonding activities is not just about having fun; it is about creating a cohesive, motivated, and high-performing team that can drive organizational success. As the evidence suggests, the return on investment for team bonding activities is substantial, making it a vital component of any successful workplace strategy. Enhancing Communication and Collaboration One of the primary benefits of team bonding is improved communication among team members. Effective communication is the bedrock of any successful team, and activities designed to foster relationships can significantly enhance this aspect. A study conducted by MIT’s Human Dynamics Laboratory found that teams with higher levels of social interaction outside of formal meetings performed better than those with limited interaction. These teams were more cohesive, coordinated, and ultimately more productive. Bonding activities, as simple as group lunches or intensive as a weekend retreat, create opportunities for employees to interact in a relaxed setting. This helps break down barriers and encourages open communication, which translates into a more collaborative work environment. When employees feel comfortable sharing ideas and feedback, it leads to better problem-solving and innovation. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Brittney Aquino, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Aquino may be contacted at baquino@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    London Office Builders Aren’t Scared of Brexit Anymore

    May 26, 2019 —
    For London office developers at least, the Brexit waiting game is over. Developers mostly steered clear of doing new projects on spec in the political upheaval that followed the U.K.’s 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Now the surprising resilience of London’s office market, highlighted by technology giants like Alphabet Inc. committing to open new bases in the city, has convinced them that it’s time to break ground. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jack Sidders, Bloomberg

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    October 26, 2020 —
    When a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:
    When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.
    Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations omitted). 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