BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction 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


    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Five Facts About Housing That Will Make People In New York City and San Francisco Depressed

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business
    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. Leveraging 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

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    June 05, 2017 —
    The matter has been fully briefed since last year and the construction industry anxiously awaits the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132. Numerous amicus briefs have also been filed including one by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, with the immediate past president of the organization, CGDRB's Glenn T. Barger, Esq., listed as the attorney of record. The Supreme Court will consider the issue of whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, thereby resolving the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District's holding in McMillin Albany, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District's holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, on this particular issue. Oral argument is still pending and CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the progress of this case. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

    May 15, 2023 —
    In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    May 10, 2013 —
    Cold and wet weather was not bad news for the lumber industry. The weather in the first quarter set or tied records for both precipitation and low temperatures. Not good weather for building. Construction was delayed as a result, leading to less call for lumber. In response, there was a 15 percent drop in lumber futures, continuing a decline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    October 26, 2020 —
    Despite barring the insured's expert witnesses from testifying as to the cause of the loss, lay witnesses were still available, making the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer improper. Greater Hall Temple Church of God v. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21934 (11th Cir. July 15, 2020). Hurricane Matthew damaged the Greater Hall Temple Church of God's (Church) roof. Leaks occurred, causing water damage to the Church's interior. A claim was submitted to Southern Mutual. The policy did not cover loss caused by water. Nor did it cover loss to the interior of buildings unless the rain entered through openings made by a specified peril. An independent adjuster found that the damage was caused not by wind, but by pre-exisiting structural issues. Southern Mutual denied the claim. The Church filed suit. Southern Mutual moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike three of the Church's expert witnesses. The district court agreed that none of the witnesses could qualify as experts. Two of the witnesses did not have the requisite experience nor had they used a sufficiently reliable methodology formulating their opinions. A third expert was barred because his expert opinion had not been timely disclosed. Thereafter, Southern Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted because the Church had not provided admissible evidence that damage to the Church's roof was caused by Hurricane Matthew. 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

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    March 02, 2020 —
    New York Partner Karen L. Campbell and Fort Lauderdale Partner Kristen D. Perkins will both speak at the upcoming CLM 2020 Annual Conference taking place March 18 to 20 at the Gaylord Texan Resort outside Dallas, Texas. On March 19 at 2:00 p.m., Ms. Perkins will join a panel discussion titled “Predictive Analytics – You Don’t Need a Crystal Ball to Predict the Future,” exploring how predictive analytics affects litigation management programs, including case budgets, case cycle times, and claims outcomes. The panelists will also look at how machine learning picks up on nuances or anomalies that can affect analytics and give attendees a clearer picture on expected case parameters, and how that information can empower claims professionals during firm selection. Then, on March 20 at 10:40 a.m., Ms. Campbell will join a roundtable discussion titled “How to Calculate Damages and Defend in Serious Injury Cases,” covering the calculation of both economic and non-economic damages, as well as trends and recent verdicts involving punitive damages and assessing the various types of third-party liability. Reprinted courtesy of Karen Campbell, Lewis Brisbois and Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Campbell may be contacted at Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    July 15, 2019 —
    The latest federal regulatory agenda has been released, which, among other matters, lists proposed and projected environmental regulatory proceedings being considered by different departments and agencies. Here are some selected items. EPA 1. The Water Office
    • EPA plans to issue in December 2019 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to consider making a regulatory determination as a prelude to listing as drinking water contaminants PFOA and PFOS pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    • EPA (along with the Corps of Engineers) plans to issue an NPRM in December 2019 that will propose to revise and update its 2008 mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, with a final rule scheduled for September 2020.
    • An NPRM to revise the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category will be released in June 2019.
    • Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
      Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

      How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

      March 04, 2024 —
      Are you crazy? That is what I asked my client when he asked me to conduct a jury trial remotely. At the time, I did not even know if it was feasible. While I figured that most courtrooms had remote capabilities, I was not sure whether anyone was crazy enough to do a jury trial remotely and whether a courtroom would accommodate it. Would I be able to truly connect with the jurors? Would the jurors hold it against me that I am appearing remotely while they have to be there in person? I told my client that this was a terrible idea but that I would at least see if it was an option. At the Final Status Conference, the Court confirmed that it could accommodate a remote appearance for both the party and the party’s counsel and gave its permission to do so. It was also clear that I would be the only attorney exercising this option, and the judge remarked that this would be a first for him. Appearing remotely while other attorneys appear in person is not something I would normally consider. However, this case presented a unique set of circumstances. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Samuel Yu, Kahana Feld
      Ms. Yu may be contacted at syu@kahanafeld.com

      Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

      July 05, 2021 —
      As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. 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