BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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


    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    With Wildfires at a Peak, “Firetech” Is Joining Smart City Lineups

    A Recession Is Coming, But the Housing Market Won't Trigger It

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Don’t Waive Too Much In Your Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    The Quiet War Between California’s Charter Cities and the State’s Prevailing Wage Law

    Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

    It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects
    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

    Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

    March 04, 2024 —
    Legislation was recently introduced to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives proposing the creation of the first-ever Workforce Housing Tax Credit (WHTC) for middle-income housing developments. Similar to the existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the WHTC would provide additional federal income tax credits to housing development projects for tenants making between 60% and 100% of Area Median Income (AMI). The allocation of WHTC would be based on a competitive bid process and awarded to developments over a 15-year credit period (as opposed to a 10-year credit period for LIHTC). Developments receiving allocations of WHTC will be subject to affordability requirements during the 15-year credit period and subsequent extended use period of at least 15 years. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    June 17, 2024 —
    We congratulate our Payne & Fears attorneys named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars in the following practice areas: Employment & Labor Blake A. Dillion Business Litigation Leilani L. Jones Employment Litigation: Defense Tyler B. Runge Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    October 09, 2018 —
    On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. 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

    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

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    September 03, 2015 —
    Construction of the new $1.1 billion home of Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves is about three months ahead of schedule, according to team executives. “We’ve built a really solid, aggressive, efficient plan,” Mike Plant, head of the team’s business operations, said in an interview Thursday during a brick-laying ceremony. “No one has ever built a ballpark of this scale and scope in 39 months, and we’re going to do it in 36.” The 41,500-seat stadium, 14 miles northwest of Turner Field and known as SunTrust Park, will be about 20 percent smaller than the existing ballpark and could be completed by mid-November 2016, Plant and Braves Chairman Terry McGuirk said. The complex will include a 250-room Omni hotel, a nine-story corporate office for Comcast Corp. and the Roxy Theatre, a 4,000-seat music venue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Buteau, Bloomberg

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

    January 24, 2018 —
    RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ. JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ. DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ. The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held inLiberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred. The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely a remedy for construction defects but the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage. The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed. The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard Glucksman, Glenn Barger, Jon Turigliatto and David Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    January 28, 2019 —
    An expert’s qualifications are important. Please remember this the next time you retain an expert to analyze documents or data and render an opinion based on that information. An expert must be qualified to render an opinion. Otherwise the expert will not be allowed to render the opinion you may be looking for or need for purposes of trial, as discussed below. A recent personal injury case, White v. Ring Power Corp., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2729a (Fla. 3d 2018), involved a crane operator that became severely injured when operating a leased crane. The case proceeded to trial against only the equipment lessor of the crane based on the plaintiff’s contention that there were deficiencies with the crane. The plaintiff intended on using expert witnesses to interpret the crane’s load movement indicator (referred to as LMI) and render opinions that the LMI data showed prior overloads of the crane which resulted in the injury to the operator of the crane. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com