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


    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    From ‘Cuckoo’s Egg’ to Today’s Cyber Threat Landscape

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium

    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Oregon to Add 258,000 Jobs by 2022, State Data Shows

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Which Cities have the Most Affordable Homes?

    Lewis Brisbois Launches New Practice Focusing on Supply Chain Issues

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond
    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

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    September 25, 2018 —
    In response to national outrage over an infamous adverse possession case in Boulder, Colorado, in which a lawyer and a judge intentionally took their neighbors’ undeveloped land through adverse possession, the Colorado legislature amended the state’s adverse possession statute (C.R.S. § 38-41-101) to make the claim significantly harder to prove. It did this because it believed “there were insufficient ‘obstacles’ to establishing a claim for adverse possession under the existing law.”[1] Effective July 1, 2008, the amendment created a heightened burden of proof, additional element requirements, and the possibility of a losing defendant recovering money from successful plaintiffs for the value of the land they took and the taxes the defendant had paid on that land. The Boulder case eventually settled, but the resulting statutory amendments have drastically changed the landscape of Colorado’s adverse possession law. Ten years later, this blog post takes a brief look at the amended statute, the impact it has had, and questions that have yet to be resolved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    April 10, 2019 —
    Deference will be given to a procuring public agency in a bid protest, particularly when the issue involves whether a bid is non-responsive and constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation. You do not believe me? Perhaps you will after this holding in Biscayne Marine Partners, LLC v. City of Miami, Florida, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D467a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019): Consequently, no principle of law is clearly established…as to any obligation of the trial court (and, by analogy, an administrative hearing officer) [in a bid protest] to decide or to defer [whether a bid constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation]. If anything, the existing and clearly established principle of law inclines toward judicial deference in public agency competitive bidding disputes when the agency has exercised it discretion absent illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct. I do not know about you, but that last underlined sentence is pretty strong language regarding judicial deference! In this case, Miami (the procuring public agency) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment and lease of waterfront property, for the operation of a marina, boatyard, restaurant, wet slips, and a dry storage facility on the property. Miami issued five addenda to the RFP. There were three bidders. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    February 23, 2016 —
    In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    July 30, 2019 —
    Contractor Tutor Perini Corp. is clashing with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency over what the firm says are alleged design flaws that may push past December the completion of the already-delayed $1.6-billion Central Subway Project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erica Berardi, ENR
    Ms. Berardi may be contacted at BerardiE@enr.com

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    June 11, 2014 —
    After learning about construction defects on the “southern leg of the Canada-to-Texas project,” safety regulators have added two additional conditions “on construction of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline,” according to Claims Journal. The defects, which have been fixed, included “high rates of bad welds, dented pipe and damaged pipeline coating.” The first condition requires “TransCanada to hire a third-party contractor chosen by the pipeline safety agency to monitor the construction” and report to the U.S. government, while the second condition requires “TransCanada to adopt a quality management program.” Both conditions were “buried near the end of the 26 appendices in a voluminous environmental impact statement on Keystone XL released by the State Department on Jan. 31.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

    February 12, 2014 —
    Even though it’s been revealed that “faulty data” was used to reject many New Jersey recovery grants for victims of Superstorm Sandy, the state has announced that it’s too late to appeal, according to The Wall Street Journal. “The applicants were informed by letter that they weren't eligible,” state officials told The Wall Street Journal, “and it should have been clear that they needed to appeal last year, so the application process won't be reopened.” The majority of the rejected applicants that did appeal within the open period were found to be eligible for the grant: “Nearly 80% of people who appealed their rejections ended up winning their cases, according to data released by the Fair Share Housing Center, a public-interest law firm critical of the Christie administration. And of the 8,007 applicants rejected from both programs, 5,583 didn't appeal, or 70%, according to Fair Share Housing Center's analysis.” U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell called for “an independent monitor” to be “appointed to oversee the state’s storm spending ‘to ensure there isn’t further mismanagement.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deferred Maintenance?

    December 17, 2024 —
    A Tennessee-based “outsourced maintenance vendor” to an engine company filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking to recover nearly $150,000 on “open account,” for work previously performed. The engine company removed the case to the Federal District Court in New Orleans and asserted as a defense that the vendor lacked a proper Louisiana construction contractor’s license. The engine company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the defense. Under Louisiana law, a contract between parties is “absolutely null”--considered to have never existed--where one of the parties performed services without a required Louisiana contractor’s license, and the combined work reaches a $50,000 threshold. The engine company asserted that the vendor performed typical construction contractor work, including plywood flooring, applied epoxy to concrete flooring, erected part of a commercial carport, undertook certain heavy demolition, and installed fences, guardrails, and wire racks. 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

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    June 10, 2019 —
    The speed and quality of maintenance and repair are critical in the modern, technology-packed built environment. Consequently, these were considered in an experimental project that tested how remote expert assistance using VR and AR technologies could help improve the productivity of field service. I’m in a hall overlooking white mountain tops. It’s snowing. In front of me stands an avatar that explains to me what we can do together in this virtual space. He jumps away but I can still hear his voice from behind me. He fetches a chair and hands it to me. I grab it and inspect it. The next moment, a video starts playing on the wall. Later, my host shows me how to draw in three dimensions, how to make sticky notes, how to share a PC desktop, and how to use other collaboration tools. This experience took place at FAKE Production, a Helsinki-based digital image, animation, and VR/AR studio. With VR glasses and hand-held controllers, I had tried out Glue, their universal collaboration platform. This is a soon-to-be-released service that you can use with VR/AR gear and on mobile and desktop devices. Glue is also one of the solutions tested in an experimental project called Expert assistance using VR and AR glasses. In this project, Sovelto, a Finnish educational company, wanted to explore the possibilities of using VR and AR solutions for field service. Over ten organizations took part in the project, which received funding from KIRA-digi, the national built environment digitalization program. 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