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


    Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

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

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    "My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

    Start-up to Streamline Large-Scale Energy Renovation

    Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    2024 Construction Law Update

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    Hurricane Milton Barrels Toward Florida With 180 MPH Winds

    New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

    Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    Renovate or Demolish Milwaukee’s Historic City Hall?

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

    OSHA Issues Final Rule on Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Data

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    The Privilege Is All Mine: California Appellate Court Finds Law Firm Holds Attorney Work Product Privilege Applicable to Documents Created by Formerly Employed Attorney

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards
    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

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    April 11, 2018 —
    Interpreting Hawaii law, the federal district court held that the standard for triggering the duty to defend is the same as the standard for the duty to advance costs under a D&O policy. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56949 (D. Haw. April 3, 2018). The underlying plaintiffs sued 22 defendants, including Maui Land Pineapple (MLP) and Ryan L. Churchill, concerning a residential development project known as The Ritz-Carlton Club & Residences. The underlying complaint alleged that MLP "directly or indirectly through wholly owned subsidiaries exerts control" over Kapalua Bay, LLC, the defendant in the underlying lawsuit. Kapalua Bay, LLC was created as a joint venture of which MLP held 51%. Churchill was a senior executive officer of MLP, President of Kapalua Bay, and an executive officer of Kapalua Realty, which participated in all aspects of the Project, such as financing, development, and construction. In their second amended complaint, the underlying plaintiffs alleged nine Counts against the defendants, including breach of fiduciary duty. It was alleged that defendants were not transparent and kept owners in the dark regarding the status of the project. Several allegations named Churchill individually and described his alleged material misrepresentations to the underlying plaintiffs regarding the project's financing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    December 02, 2015 —
    In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose. Background Facts Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    July 03, 2022 —
    The Biden Administration’s Housing Supply Action Plan, unveiled last week, aims to help close America’s shortfall of almost 4 million housing units and subdue the nation’s skyrocketing home prices. At the top of its list of action items is a promise to provide federal grants as a reward to communities that alter land-use policies to promote density, an approach the administration is already piloting. But identifying the land-use policies that most effectively add housing is harder than it seems. Mounting evidence indicates that one-off reforms such as eliminating single-family-only zoning aren’t adequate. To make meaningful progress in building homes, municipalities have to do more. The Biden plan doesn’t detail how it will determine which types of policies will make a community eligible for these federal grants. But to meet the administration’s housing goals, we recommend it require that local governments seeking grants both show that their zoning changes are actually producing additional housing units, and also that their reforms include the full array of land-use policies that affect housing affordability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    November 01, 2022 —
    Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    March 28, 2018 —
    Part II of this three-part series compares and analyzes important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions), including Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part I covered Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. SCHEDULE/TIME Relevant Sections:
    • 2007 & 2017 A201: Section 3.10.1
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs: Section 6.2
    AIA:
    • Section 3.10.1 of the 2007 A201 requires that the Contractor promptly after being awarded the Contract, prepare and submit a construction schedule providing for Work to be completed within the time limits required in the Contract Documents.
    • This schedule shall be revised at appropriate intervals.
    • The 2017 edition breaks down the schedule to contain date of commencement, interim milestone dates, date of substantial completion, apportionment of Work by trade or building system, and the time required for completion of each portion of the Work.
    • Under section 3.10.2 of the 2007 and 2017 versions, if the Contractor fails to provide a submittal schedule, the Contractor is not entitled to any additional compensation or a time extension based on the Owner’s or the Architect’s slow processing of submittals, regardless of how long they take.
    ConsensusDocs 200:
    • The 2017 Contract replaces the term Contract Time and instead requires a “Schedule of the Work…formatted in detailed precedence-style critical path method that (a) provides a graphic representation of all activities and events, including float values that will affect the critical path of the Work and (b) identifies dates that are critical to ensure timely and orderly completion of the Work.”
    • The Constructor must submit an initial schedule to the Owner only before, “first application for payment” and thereafter on a monthly basis. (Section 6.2.1).
    • The Owner is allowed to change the sequences provided in the schedule as long as it does not “unreasonably interfere with the Work.” (Section 6.2.2).
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    January 06, 2016 —
    The court found that the contractor was entitled to relief under the contractual indemnity provision, but not the policy's additional insured clause. Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Constr. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2257 (Ct. App. La. Nov. 10, 2015). Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA retained Fluor Enterprises, Inc. as a contractor to transport and install FEMA trailers. Fluor entered a Blanket Ordering Agreement (BOA) with Bobby Reavis Contracting, Inc. to transport and install the trailers. The BOA provided Reavis would defend and indemnify Fluor from all liability arising from the subcontractor's work. Reavis also agreed to name Fluor as an additional insured under its CGL policy. Reavis installed a FEMA trailer for Connie Chatelain. Ms. Chatelain was injured when she fell exiting her FEMA trailer. She sued Fluor and Reavis. Fluor tendered the suit to Reavis and Reavis' insurer, Guilford Insurance Company. The tender was rejected and Fluor filed a third-party action demanding indemnification, reimbursement of all legal expenses and damages for insurer misconduct. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    September 23, 2024 —
    (August 15, 2024) – 68 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 26 offices have been named to the 5th edition of “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.” Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition! You can see the list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America here. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    October 21, 2015 —
    A recent case out of Missouri emphasizes the importance of providing notice to a surety when a bonded subcontractor is in default. When the question of whether a surety will be obligated under the bond is in the balance, notice is crucial. In CMS v. Safeco Insurance Company, Safeco provided a performance bond to a subcontractor for the benefit of CMS. The bond specifically provided:
    “PRINCIPAL DEFAULT. Whenever the Principal [Subcontractor] shall be, and is declared by the Obligee [CMS] to be in default under the Subcontract, with the Obligee having performed its obligations in the Subcontract, the Surety [Safeco] may promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly: 4.1 COMPLETE SUBCONTRACT. . . . 4.2 OBTAIN NEW CONTRACTORS. . . . 4.3 PAY OBLIGEE. . . . 4.4 DENY LIABILITY. . .”
    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