BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

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

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment
    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

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    June 15, 2020 —
    Bullying, threats and racial slurs detail alleged “hostile” working conditions for black employees at a now complete cement plant modernization project near Albany, N.Y., in a lawsuit filed June 2 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against CCC Group Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based general contractor. Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    June 20, 2022 —
    Claims that the broker failed to secure adequate coverage for condominium owners were dismissed. Ting Lin v. Mountain Valley Indemn. Co., 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1254 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 10, 2022). The amended complaint alleged the agent, Century Max Inc., breached its duty to advise and sell to plaintiffs a homeowners and fire policy far in excess of $100,000 for their condominium unit, which was worth in excess of $600,000. Century moved to dismiss A fire in the building forced all owners to vacate their units. The entire building was thereafter declared unsafe for habitation by the City of New York. The condominium owners met and voted to not restore the building, but to sell the burnt-out shell and distribute the sales proceeds and the condominium's insurance among the unit owners. There was no indication that the owners would not be made whole once the funds were distributed. 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

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    January 08, 2024 —
    Atlanta, Ga. (December 18, 2023) – Atlanta Partner Adi Allushi and Associate Cecilia Walker recently secured a defense verdict for a national property management corporation on claims brought by a vendor and cross-claims lodged by the property owner. Lewis Brisbois’ client is a national corporation, over a century old, that managed over 140 properties with 40,000 units. In 2019, the client entered the Georgia market managing three apartment complexes owned by a hedge fund in New York. The owner terminated without cause the client within six months, and several vendors – including the plaintiff, who was a remedial services provider – were not paid during the last few months and the transition period. The plaintiff sued the owner for the unpaid services, as well as an incorrect entity it believed to be the client. The owner cross-claimed against the client for fraudulent misrepresentations. Based on the misnomer statute, the court granted default judgment against the client. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    May 05, 2014 —
    Divisions in Congress over boosting funding for bridge repairs and highway construction are making it difficult to pass a long-term measure in time to prevent a disruption in existing road projects, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said. “I would say that we have a tough, a tough challenge ahead of us that hasn’t been solved for a long time,” Foxx said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. The Highway Trust Fund, financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, may soon not be able to meet its financial obligations, according to Foxx’s agency. The Obama administration on April 29 sent legislation to Congress proposing $302 billion for road and mass transit projects over four years, with part of the money coming from new taxes on company earnings overseas. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alan Levin, Bloomberg
    Mr. Levin may be contacted at alevin24@bloomberg.net

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    August 05, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON — The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) commends the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 8812, the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2024. The House WRDA 2024 bill will help improve America's ports and inland waterways, enhance flood risk management and storm risk reduction programs, and prioritize ecosystem restoration. While we urge the Senate to swiftly vote on its version of WRDA, we are encouraged that our nation's critical water resources infrastructure remains a congressional priority. The House version of WRDA includes several key provisions to enhance the safety of America's dams and levees, which each received a 'D' on the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, as well as provisions to modernize the nation's inland waterways system, which received a 'D+' in the 2021 Report Card. This includes one of ASCE's top legislative priorities for this year, the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program through 2028. But beyond the reauthorization, this bill reduces restrictions on the amount of funds states can receive in National Dam Safety Program State Assistance Grants; improves access to the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program; and requires the incorporation of low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams. Each of these provisions are critical to ensuring the long-term safety of our nation's dams and ASCE applauds the House for their inclusion. Furthermore, ASCE was pleased to see that the House legislation extends the National Levee Safety Program through 2033, which will help support the establishment of state levee safety programs, develop and publish national guidelines for levee safety, and enhance flood protection nationwide. While these measures are not included in the Senate version of WRDA, we encourage lawmakers to ensure they are included in a final conference version of the bill. We thank the House of Representatives for moving forward WRDA 2024 and strongly encourage the Senate to pass its version so that Congress can keep this vital water resources legislation on a biennial schedule and ensure our nation's dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways can support the American economy and protect public safety. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    December 30, 2013 —
    Construction defect claims in an Arizona community are time barred and so the judge had determined that National Fire & Marine Insurance is not liable for coverage. National Fire claimed that while there was no Arizona case law concerning statutes of limitations for equitable contributions by insurance carriers, the court agreed that “its position is directly supported by cases from other jurisdictions.” In the underlying construction defect case, Steadfast Insurance had settled with homeowners over allegations of construction defects. National Fire was a co-insurer and declined coverage. National Fire’s citing of two California cases was not unique for the Arizona courts. Other Arizona cases cited the same two California cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoiding Wage Claims in California Construction

    November 25, 2024 —
    For both private works projects and state and local public works projects in California, higher-tiered contractors can find themselves opening up their wallets if their lower-tiered subcontractors fail to pay their workers. And if you think this is just another one of those crazy California things, think again. Higher-tiered parties on federal public works projects can also be asked to open up their wallets if their lower-tiered subcontractors stiff their workers. While we’re coming upon the season of giving, here’s a Scrooge-like guide on things you can do to avoid finding yourselves on the hook for your lower-tiered subcontractor’s even more Scrooge-like failure to pay their workers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    November 18, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.

    The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”

    Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”

    Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”

    The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”

    The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.

    The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.

    Read the court’s decision…

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