BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    President Trump Issued Two New EOs on Energy Infrastructure and Federal Energy Policy

    Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA

    Faulty Workmanship Claims Amount to Multiple Occurrences

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    New York's New Gateway: The Overhaul of John F. Kennedy International Airport

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    Orchestrating Bias: Arbitrator’s Undisclosed Membership in Philharmonic Group with Pauly Shore’s Attorney Not Grounds to Reverse Award in Real Estate Dispute

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    Empire State Building Owners Sue Photographer for Topless Photo Shoot

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!
    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

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    September 06, 2021 —
    On any given day, there are a multitude of variables playing out on construction jobsites, from maintaining daily logs to track hundreds of workers to creating daily schedules to keep projects on track. What made an industry that’s arguably about 20 years in the past get a dramatic technology boost five years into the future? A global pandemic that nobody saw coming. When COVID-19 made its first appearance on construction sites in early 2020, the domino effect of project shutdowns and labor shortages created uncertainty along with budget and timeline nightmares. The pandemic shook up the industry, with many projects coming to a screeching halt. As general contractors scrambled to keep their projects moving and workers safe, technology proved to be the solution. With jobsites shutting down, coupled with a nationwide labor shortage, real-time visibility over workforce variables, such as who was on-site, where they were and who they interacted with was more important than ever. Safe proximity tracking, virtual density and access control technologies helped construction companies gain more control, visibility and the ability to deal with the ever-changing regulations due to the global pandemic. More importantly, it helped keep their valuable workforce safe. Reprinted courtesy of Alexandra McManus & Hussein Cholkamy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cholkamy may be contacted at hussein@eyrus.com Ms. McManus may be contacted at alex@eyrus.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    February 20, 2023 —
    The annual General Assembly session is now well underway here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As is always the case, those in our fine state legislature have introduced with varying success a few construction-related bills. This post will list just a few without comment, and a big one at the end that will likely spur a post or two down the road here at Construction Law Musings: HB1490: Virginia Public Procurement Act; certain construction contracts; performance and payment bonds. Allows localities to allow a contractor of indefinite-delivery or quantity contracts, defined in the bill, who is otherwise required to furnish performance and payment bonds in the sum of the contract amount to the public body with which he contracted to furnish such bonds only the dollar amount of the individual tasks identified in the underlying contract. Such contractors shall not be required to furnish the sum of the contract amount if the governing locality has adopted such an ordinance. UPDATE: Passed the House and is being considered in the Senate UPDATE 2: A substitute bill has passed both the House and the Senate. 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

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    October 10, 2022 —
    Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence. Facts of the Case ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Luckett may be contacted at KKane@sdvlaw.com

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

    July 01, 2019 —
    Can an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work? Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long. The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230. The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves

    April 17, 2019 —
    Cybersecurity breaches involving law firms are on the rise with each passing year. Law firms are prime targets for cyber criminals seeking confidential and sensitive information because of the various types of legal work that law firms normally handle for their clients. Whether it be mergers and acquisitions, the use of intellectual property, purchase agreements, bankruptcy or even litigation involving divorce, law firms are a rich depository for highly confidential and sensitive information. As a result, law firms must employ comprehensive security measures to protect themselves from security breaches or risk being on the losing end of a costly malpractice claim, and suffer severe reputational harm. Law Firms Continue To Be Targeted By Cybercriminals According to the American Bar Association ("ABA") 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report, 23% of the law firms who participated in the survey reported that their law firm experienced a data breach. Although this may be just a 1% increase from the 22% who reported a breach in 2017, it is important to understand that this is an increase of 8% from the stable percentages reported from 2013 through 2016.1 The 2018 survey report also revealed that security breaches fluctuated with firm size – 14% for solo law firms, 24% for firms employing 2-9 attorneys, approximately 24% for firms with 10-49 attorneys, 42% for firms with 50-99 attorneys, and approximately 31% for those firms employing 100 or more attorneys. Latest Law Firm Security Breaches The notorious criminal group called "The Dark Overlord" has a history of committing data breaches of high profile companies such as Gorilla Glue, Netflix, Larson Studios, multiple healthcare companies, and Little Red Door Cancer Agency. Their goal is simple – steal sensitive information and then extort payment from the victims by threatening to release the sensitive information to the public. On December 31, 2018, this cybercriminal group announced to the world that they had acquired 18,000 documents containing highly sensitive legal information related to insurance based litigation connected to the 9/11 tragedy. The stolen information was the attorney/client property of Lloyd's of London, Silverstein Properties, and Hiscox Syndicates, Ltd. In its announcement, The Dark Overlord boasted that they were in possession of client sensitive information, such as: "emails; retainer agreements; non-disclosure agreements; settlements, litigation strategies; liability analysis; defense formation; collection of expert witness testimonies; communication with government officials in countries all over the world; voice mails; dealings with the FBI, USDOJ, DOD, confidential communications, and so much more." Subsequent to the data breach, The Dark Overlord announced to the public that they designed a compensation plan that would allow for public crowd-funding for its organization to permit the public to view the stolen information in exchange for bitcoin payment. The more public funding it receives, the more stolen sensitive information will be unlocked and released to the public. It is estimated that this cybercriminal group already distributed information to the public on two separate occasions during the month of January 2019. High profile cybersecurity breaches of law firms is nothing new – for example, the infamous Panama Papers breach, where cybercriminals leaked 11.5 million documents exposing the shadowy business of setting up offshore corporations as tax shelters for businesses, celebrities, and politicians - and the infamous Petya Malware attack which resulted in a digital lockdown of one of the world's largest law firms, DLA Piper. However, despite the infrequency of publicized cyber-attacks of law firms by the media, the FBI has recently announced that law firms should expect an increase in security attacks by cybercriminals because law firms are now viewed as "one-stop shops" for cybercriminals. Therefore, in order to combat the inevitable increase in cyber-attacks, law firms must get prepared. How Law Firms Can Protect Themselves All law firms will agree that the most serious consequence of a security breach for their firm would be the unauthorized access to sensitive client data. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.1 and 1.62 and related Comments, require an attorney to take competent and reasonable measures to safeguard information relating to their clients. This duty to "safeguard' information imposes a significant challenge to firms when using technology in connection with protecting client information because most law firms are not savvy with technology and lack proper cyber security training. In order for a law firm to protect itself from security breaches and inadvertently violate its duty of safeguarding a client's sensitive information, it is important to take the following actions:
    • Start by taking an inventory and risk assessment of the firm to determine what needs to be protected – the inventory should include both technology and data;
    • Develop, implement and maintain an appropriate cybersecurity program that complies with applicable ethical and legal obligations;
    • Ensure the cybersecurity program addresses people, policies and procedures, and technology. The cybersecurity program must designate an individual or a group to be in charge and coordinate security;
    • Develop an incident response plan scaled to the size of the firm;
    • Continually train staff and attorneys to identify and understand potential cybersecurity threats;
    • Consider implementing a third-party assessment of firm's cybersecurity program and policies;
    • Purchase cyber liability for insurance which not only covers first party losses to law firms (like lost productivity, data restoration, and legal expenses) but also liability protection to third parties;
    • Implement authentication and access controls for network, computers and mobile devices used by the firm's staff and attorneys;
    • Consider the use of full-drive encryption for computers and mobile devices;
    • Have staff and attorneys avoid and/or limit the use of public WiFi when working remotely; and
    • Create a disaster recovery plan to backup all data in the event of a cyber-attack or natural catastrophe.
    Continually reviewing, implementing, training and updating a firm's cybersecurity program and protocols will help safeguard sensitive and confidential client information and/or data. No law firm wants to be the next data breach headline – so take the necessary steps to avoid a potential disaster. 1 Past ABA Legal Technology Surveys reported 14% in 2016, 15% in 2015, 14% in 2014 and 15% in 2013. 2 On November 1, 2018, California adopted ethics rules patterned after the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion's Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business law, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”

    October 07, 2024 —
    A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:
    “[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

    March 25, 2024 —
    In an apparent gift to plaintiffs’ construction defect lawyers, Representatives Parenti and Bacon introduced House Bill 24-1230 on February 12, 2024. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for hearing on March 6th, during the afternoon session beginning at 1:30 pm. To date, the bill does not have any senate sponsors, perhaps because the senators are more interested in serving their constituents’ needs for attainable housing than in lining the pockets of their plaintiffs’ construction defect attorney friends. According to the bill’s summary, HB 24-1230 contains the following provisions: Current law declares void any express waivers of or limitations on the legal rights or remedies provided by the “Construction Defect Action Reform Act” or the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act.” Sections 1 and 4 make it a violation of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act” to obtain or attempt to obtain a waiver or limitation that violates the aforementioned current law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    May 01, 2019 —
    Standard form construction contracts between an owner and design profesional will address copyright protection, as well as other contractual protections, associated with a design professional’s “instruments of service.” An owner negotiating an agreement with a design professional should consider alternative language that broadens the scope of the contractual license given to it with respect to the use of the design. Regardless, a design professional’s copyright infringement claim is still a challenging claim to ultimately prevail on. While a design professional may likely survive the motion to dismiss stage in a copyright infringement claim, whether it survives the summary judgment stage is another, more challenging, story. “To state a claim for copyright infringement a plaintiff [design professional] must assert [and prove the following two prongs]: ‘(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.’” Robert Swedroe Architect Planners, A.I.A., P.A. v. J. Milton & Associates, Inc., 2019 WL 1059836, *3 (S.D.Fla. 2019) quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). In the first prong, the design professional must establish it complied with statutory formalities to own a valid copyright. Id. In the second prong, the design professional must establish that the defendant copied constituent elements that are original. Id. There is also a claim known as contributory copyright infringement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com