BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Understanding Lien Waivers

    New York’s 2022 Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act: Significant Amendments to the C.P.L.R.

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

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

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

    Untangling Unique Legal Issues in Modern Modular Construction

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)

    Plans Go High Tech

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

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

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    Nondelegable Duty of Care Owed to Third Persons

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

    General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction
    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. Drawing 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

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    May 30, 2018 —
    On May 3, 2018, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 899 into law, officially making it Act 389. Act 389 modifies O.C.G.A. § 13-10-4 and § 36-91-23 relating to public works bidding and contracts of state and local governments, respectively. Both sections are modified in the same bill because they contain the same language. The bill prohibits the disqualification of bidders based upon lack of previous experience with the project’s desired construction delivery method. Before the modifications, the code protected a contractor from disqualification only for lack of previous experience on a job of comparable size. After the modification, the law expands to prohibit disqualification based on lack of previous experience with comparable job size and lack of previous experience with the construction delivery method. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    September 07, 2017 —
    The District of Columbia Condominium Act contains a statutory warranty that protects condominium associations and their unit owner members from structural defects in newly constructed and newly converted condominiums. The warranty is backed by a condominium developer’s bond, letter of credit, or other form of security from which monies can be drawn upon if the developer fails to make warranty repairs. This article discusses how the warranty against structural defect works and how to make claims against the developer’s security to fund warranty repairs. THE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in the condominium common elements and each condominium unit. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) 42-1903.16(b). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    January 11, 2021 —
    Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. 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

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    January 22, 2014 —
    In the case Port Liberte II Condominium Association v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Company, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a homeowners association (HOA) could bypass a bylaw that requires unit owners to approve litigation before it is filed, the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Two construction-defect suits were reinstated by the appeals court, and both had been “dismissed based on alleged violation of the bylaws.” The first suit “claimed the defendants' negligence contributed to major construction defects at the 225-unit condominium development, which was completed in 2004” while “the second suit claimed that one section of the development is sinking into the ground because of a failure to properly investigate soil conditions at the former industrial site where the buildings sit.” According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the HOA did not obtain approval from the unit owners prior to commencing litigation because “the statute of limitations was about to expire.” However, the HOA met with the residents in October of 2009 and a vote was cast “72 to 3 to pursue litigation.” In May of 2011 the second suit was dismissed because defendants stated “approval of residents was not obtained.” Another meeting of residents occurred, and another vote cast ratified “both suits by a vote of 65 to 1.” However, Judge Baber, who had previously dismissed both suits, refused to reinstate them. “The Appellate Division said in its ruling that the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1, gives the association the exclusive authority to file suit against builders and other third parties for damage to common areas in the community,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. “Given its legal responsibility for upkeep of common areas, and its statutory authorization to sue for damages to such areas, the association had standing to file suit, the appeals court said.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    December 09, 2011 —

    A report this week by David McGrath Schwarz of the Las Vegas Sun suggests that Nevada’s construction defect laws will be a point of much contention in upcoming legislative sessions. The report cites renewed interest in the state’s construction defect laws due to ongoing federal investigations of construction defect attorney Nancy Quon and construction company owner Leon Benzer. Guilty pleas have been entered by at least ten individuals including an attorney, property managers, straw purchasers, and former HOA board members.

    The article suggests that Nevada’s Chapter 40 laws are easily manipulated to the detriment of Nevada’s homebuilding industry. Construction industry lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to change the laws in past legislative sessions.

    The Sun’s article speculates that the building industry might be able to gain legislative concessions due to the volume of guilty pleas and what it refers to as examples of Chapter 40 abuses. ”With federal authorities collecting guilty pleas, the construction industry has prime examples of the system being abused, and how lucrative it can be for attorneys.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    October 03, 2022 —
    RESTON, Va. – The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Sacramento Section today recognized the City of Sacramento Water Works a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark. The landmark, which was completed in 1854, was recognized at a dedication ceremony at the Sacramento History Museum led by ASCE's Sacramento Section, which is celebrating its centennial anniversary of the Section's founding. The section was joined by Ken Rosenfield, director, ASCE Region 9 and Chuck Spinks, chair, Region 9 History and Heritage Committee. ASCE represents more than 150,000 members of the civil engineering profession worldwide. It is the oldest national engineering society in the United States. ASCE recognizes historically significant civil engineering projects, structures, and sites all over the world. More than 280 projects have earned the prestigious title for creativity and innovation, and almost all are executed under challenging conditions. The City of Sacramento Water Works was the first municipal, city-owned water system west of the Mississippi River. This project was inspired by a disastrous fire in 1852 that destroyed 27 blocks in Sacramento and the city did not have a water system capable of putting out fires. The water works site was equipped with a distribution system with hydrants that could fight fires. The City of Sacramento Water Works was nominated by the ASCE Sacramento Section Centennial Committee. For more information about ASCE's Historic Civil Engineering Landmark Program, go to https://www.asce.org/about-civil-engineering/history-and-heritage/historic-landmarks. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 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

    New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

    September 01, 2016 —
    According to a client alert by the firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A), “In a recent significant decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that defective work of a subcontractor that causes consequential property damage is both an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage’ under the terms of a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.” Patrick J. Greene, Jr., and Frank A. Hess of P&A wrote that the Cypress Point Condominium Assoc., Inc. v Adria Towers, LLC, 2016 N.J. Lexis 847 (Aug.4,2016) “decision is important in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that had relied upon the influential New Jersey case, Weedo v. Stone–E–Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), that had determined that such claims involved non-insured ‘business risks.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Commercial Construction Lenders Rejoice: The Pennsylvania Legislature Provides a Statutory fix for the “Kessler” Decision

    July 16, 2014 —
    In May 2012, the Pennsylvania Superior Court rendered its now infamous “Kessler” decision. The Kessler decision resulted in fundamental changes in the operation of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien Act as it applied to construction loans where the visible commencement of work on the project commenced before the recordation of the construction loan’s open-end mortgage. Essentially, the Kessler decision held that if the visible commence of work on the project began prior to the recording of the open-end mortgage and any loan advances were made other than for what are commonly considered “hard construction” costs, then any unpaid contractors and subcontractors who later filed mechanics’ liens would have their liens take priority over the lien of all of the construction loan advances. Subsequent to the Kessler decision, both the lending and title insurance communities in Pennsylvania have struggled mightily to structure deals around the problems created by Kessler and to provide lenders with title insurance coverage for construction loans when work commenced before the recordation of the open-end mortgage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com