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


    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    Adaptive Reuse: Creative Reimagining of Former Office Space to Address Differing Demands

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

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

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Brown Act Modifications in Response to Coronavirus Outbreak

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Court Grants Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    Infrastructure Money Comes With Labor Law Strings Attached

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Faulty Workmanship Claims Amount to Multiple Occurrences

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test
    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

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    May 02, 2022 —
    The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors (“GC”) or construction managers (“CM”) are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Examples of this phenomenon are where a claim of harassment or discrimination originates in the lower tier ranks of subcontractors, or even where there is a claim involving an independent contractor on a project and a discrimination lawsuit ensues. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. In a move that is certainly welcomed by contractors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, recently issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Felder provides a roadmap for risk mitigation by contractors looking to limit such claims in the future or to meet them head on when they do arise. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs), Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) and Lauren R. Davis, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

    August 22, 2022 —
    (August 10, 2022) - The Russia-Ukraine conflict has far-reaching implications for the insurance industry and for insurers and insureds alike. Many corporate policy holders around the world have withdrawn or scaled back operations with Russia and/or Russian-based corporations. In doing so, the corporate policy holders left behind property, assets, and inventory in Russia and/or suffered losses in revenue. Corporate policy holders are looking to their insurers to offset the losses. It is estimated that the insurance and reinsurance markets could face losses at nearly $20 billion. S&P Global predicts that losses could reach $35 billion. Additionally, the conflict in Ukraine creates uncertainty for insurers on how to navigate the influx of claims, especially from the cybersecurity sector. A key issue with the rise in claims is coverage. The general rule is that coverage under a policy for any loss must be evaluated by considering the policy language, the law applicable to the governing jurisdiction, and the facts surrounding the loss. Many policies contain a “war exclusion” clause, which can exclude property losses resulting from acts of war or governmental instability. However, corporate policy holders may have Political Risk Insurance, which can provide coverage for losses for items such as damaged property, seized property, and lost assets at a time of political turmoil or war. Even if a policy has Political Risk Insurance, it does not guarantee payout. Careful analysis of the policy language and facts surrounding the loss must still take place. For example, in the event of property claims, an insurer must still determine whether the loss is related to the conflict and/or whether the subject property was voluntarily abandoned or seized. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Kopit, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Kopit may be contacted at Michael.Kopit@lewisbrisbois.com

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    June 10, 2015 —
    Contractors often ask if they should include a one year warranty in their subcontracts. I tell them that they can, but it may be more effective to include a one-year correction period. If a contractor does include a warranty in the contract, it may actually extend the time in which a contractor may be sued. I recommend instead a Correction Period. Typical Construction Warranties Form construction contracts, like the AIA forms, often times contain warranty language. The AIA A201, General Conditions, contains a warranty section that covers materials, but it does not address how long the work is warranted: “3.5 WARRANTY The Contractor warrants to the Owner and Architect that materials and equipment furnished under the Contract will be of good quality and new unless the Contract Documents require or permit otherwise. The Contractor further warrants that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents and will be free from defects, except for those inherent in the quality of the Work the Contract Documents require or permit.” Instead, the AIA A201, section 13.7, limits the time by which claims must be brought to 10 years or the applicable statute of limitations. 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 2021 Top 50 Construction Law Firms™

    June 14, 2021 —
    Vaccination rates continue to rise, mandates are loosening for returning to work and school, and a $2 trillion infrastructure bill is looming on the horizon, but contractors remain cautious and counseled by the legal experts who thrive in the complex field of construction law. According to the latest report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction employment numbers did not move much in April despite an increased demand for housing and a recovering economy. Due to continued fallout from the pandemic—and what seems like no end in sight for the rising costs of materials—contractors have been turning to construction law firms to navigate delayed projects, interpret contract language, assist in risk mitigation and ensure the road ahead is paved with understandable and protective clauses. For the 2021 survey for the annual U.S. ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™, Construction Executive’s editorial team reached out to dozens of attorneys at the nation’s best construction law firms to learn how the legal landscape is changing, as well as how legal teams are aiding clients with sharpening contract language and pivoting in response to challenges in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Cybele Tamulonis, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    November 02, 2017 —
    Tales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:
    • It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
    • It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
    • It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
    • All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
    • The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
    • At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    September 18, 2023 —
    With the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy. A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    April 29, 2024 —
    A recent case, Jon M. Hall Company, LLC v. Canoe Creek Investments, LLC, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D812a (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), demonstrates four important things when it comes to liens:
    1. An owner can shorten the time period to foreclose on the lien, whether against the real property or a lien transfer bond, to 60 days by recording a notice of contest of lien;
    2. An owner can transfer a lien to a lien transfer bond during litigation;
    3. An owner can record a notice of contest of lien to force the lienor to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond surety within 60 days; and
    4. A contractors’ failure to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond within 60 days will extinguish its rights to pursue a claim against the lien transfer bond, and will otherwise extinguish the lien, fairly or unfairly.
    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

    Behavioral Science Meets Construction: Insights from Whistle Rewards

    September 09, 2024 —
    In this episode of the AEC Business Podcast, Aarni Heiskanen hosts Drew Carter, CEO of Whistle Rewards, and Dr. Laurel Newman, a behavioral scientist, to discuss instant rewards for driving behavioral change in construction. Laurel shares her psychology background and academic career, studying how the environment influences behavior. Drew introduces himself as a data scientist, focusing on predictive modeling. Tune in to learn how they collaborate to create motivating environments in the construction industry. Whistle Rewards is a platform specializing in rewards, recognition, and incentives in the AEC industry. It is designed to enhance employee engagement, safety compliance, performance, and technology adoption in construction companies. The Guests Drew Carter, CEO and Co-Founder at Whistle Systems, Inc. Drew is improving employee retention using data science and behavioral science. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi