BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut building 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


    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Federal Court in New York Court Dismisses Civil Authority Claim for COVID-19 Coverage

    Happenings in and around the 2015 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    Delays and Suspension of the Work Under Fixed Price Government Contract

    Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

    Las Vegas Partner Sarah Odia Named a 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyer Rising Star

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Blue Gold: Critical Water for Critical Energy Materials

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Fixing That Mistake

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

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

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit
    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

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    November 21, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider Pennsylvania’s doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of a faulty workmanship claim. Hallstone procured a general liability policy from Frederick Mutual to insure its masonry operations. Notably, when purchasing the policy through an insurance broker, Hallstone’s principal stated that he wanted the “maximum” “soup to nuts” coverage for his company. Hallstone was later sued by a customer for alleged defects in its masonry work. While Frederick agreed to provide a defense, it also commenced a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that its policy excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. The district court agreed that the business risk exclusions applied, but nevertheless found in favor of Hallstone based on the argument that Hallstone had a reasonable expectation that when applying for an insurance policy affording “soup to nuts” coverage, it this would include coverage for faulty workmanship claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    November 21, 2022 —
    Ten years ago, Geoff Neumayr decided he was tired of “doing design and construction by combat.” San Francisco International Airport had completed a master plan for the complex and the front of the airport facilities doing things the traditional way. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    February 26, 2015 —
    Under California's SB 800 "Right to Repair Act," a builder may obtain a "reasonable release" to resolve a construction defect claim in exchange for a cash payment. So, what's a "reasonable release" under SB 800? This question was answered by the Second Appellate District in the case of Belasco v. Wells (filed 2/17/2015, No. B254525). Plaintiff David Belasco ("Plaintiff") purchased a newly constructed residence in 2004 from the builder defendant Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). In 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Wells with the Contractors' State License Board (the "Board") regarding certain alleged construction defects. The parties settled the 2006 action through written agreement that required Wells to pay Plaintiff $25,000 in consideration for Plaintiff executing a release and a Civil Code §1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a subsequent action against Wells and Wells’ surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company ("American Contractors") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging a defect in the roof that was discovered by Plaintiff in 2011. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Colin T. Murphy, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    April 01, 2014 —
    The Courthouse Square in Marion County, Oregon is due to reopen after four years and nearly $23 million of repair costs to fix structural defects, according to the Statesman Journal. The square includes a courthouse building and bus mall, and is jointly owned by the county and transit district. Two years after the Courthouse Square had been built, cracks were observed “in the building’s walls” and “paving stones on the bus mall shifted and settled.” A construction defect suit was filed in 2006. However, the situation worsened in July of 2010 when “engineers determined that the entire complex was dangerous,” according to the Statesman Journal. “Building safety officials gave Courthouse Square’s occupants 60 days to move out, forcing county and transit district operations into temporary leased space.” Now that the structural repairs have been completed, Dave Clark, project manager with Structural Preservation Systems LLC (the company awarded the repair contract), stated that the building’s structure is now stronger than most buildings. “If there’s an earthquake, come to this building,” Clark said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court has rejected arguments made by Dewey Beach homeowners over the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court which had dismissed the complaint as it was filed more than 60 days after exception to the zoning rules had been voted on. A builder had been granted leave to build higher than thirty-five feet in exchange for public space, public restrooms, and other amenities for the public. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Customers Don’t Pay: What Can a Construction Business Do

    June 06, 2022 —
    Late payments are not unusual in construction. From general contractors to subs and material suppliers, every construction project participant has dealt with delayed payments as part of business. However, there’s the issue of clients who refuse to pay. Not late--just no payment. For businesses big and small, a client who refuses to pay can make a significant impact financially and operationally. Many construction transactions are made on trust, and when a client doesn’t pay, some contractors and suppliers may make poor decisions. Yet, to get out of a project going sideways--with payment in hand or lessons learned--you need to be smart and proceed with your business interest in mind. Why is the customer not paying? This is where it begins. You must first identify the reasons why a customer refuses to pay. Were they unsatisfied with the quality of work? Do they feel that what was delivered was not aligned with what’s contractually obligated? Do they feel like the work was rushed or the materials used inferior? Was the job finished later than agreed? All these are possibilities that need to be investigated. If the customer has not volunteered any of this information, it’s best to personally visit the project or set a meeting with the customer to discuss issues in person. If the problems the customer has raised are valid, plan how to resolve them right away. Suppose, after the discussion, you’ve determined that the customer demands things beyond what’s contractually obligated, and you cannot resolve them without incurring unreasonable time and costs. In that case, you might have a delinquent customer in your hands. Let the customer know your decision. If you’ve decided to proceed and fix the issues they’ve raised, send the invoice for the unpaid work immediately upon commencing the remedial work. Of course, there is no guarantee that addressing their concerns will result in swift payment, so exercise your best judgment. If you think you’ve exhausted all the cordial means to get them to pay as the contract requires, you might need to consider your legal options. A legal option to recover payments: Filing a mechanics lien State laws protect construction providers like contractors and material suppliers from non-payment through lien laws. Mechanics liens work by placing a hold on the property where the work or materials were provided as a security in case of non-payment. Mechanics liens can result in a sale of the property where the lien is attached, and the proceeds will be used to pay unpaid vendors. When a client fails to pay after a good-faith pursuit to resolve the payment issue, filing a mechanics lien becomes the smartest next move. However, note that to file a mechanics lien, you must have fulfilled the requirements of lien laws specific to the state where the project is located. For many states, the main requirement is sending a preliminary or pre-lien notice to secure your right to file liens. It’s only good business practice to file preliminary notices for every project you work on. It’s not an indication of distrust in the client’s ability to pay–and that is mentioned in the wording of many statutory statements included in preliminary notices. It’s just industry standard to file prelim notices. Filing a mechanics lien includes a period where the client still has the opportunity to pay arrears before the lien is enforced. Suppose the client fails to pay in this period. You are now allowed to enforce the mechanics lien through a lawsuit. This is a complex process, but it presents itself as the last resort to recover payments. As long as all your documents are in check, you’ve filed the necessary notices in the time and manner required by law, and you’ve fulfilled your contractual obligations to the client, a ruling in your favor is the likely outcome. Promoting timely payments It’s in your best interest to promote timely payments from your customers. While construction contracts are primarily reliant on trust, there are many things you can do to encourage and facilitate timely payments from your clients. Here are some ideas:
    • Use detailed contracts and progress billing
    • Vet clients through background research, credit history, references, and public financial records
    • Send regular on-time invoices
    • Ensure your invoices are aligned with the formats used by your client’s payables department
    • Provide multiple payment methods
    • File the necessary preliminary notices throughout the project
    In the case of construction payments, the adage prevention is better than cure applies. There are many reasons why payments get delayed or skipped, some malicious, some not. It’s in your best interest to ensure that you are doing everything from your end to promote timely payments and that you’re fully protected by rights granted to construction businesses by law. About the Author: Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors and material suppliers with lien management and payment compliance. The biggest names in construction use Handle on a daily basis to save time and money while improving efficiency. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”

    June 10, 2024 —
    You may want an intervention … but you are not getting one! So said a federal court in New Orleans to a masonry supplier seeking to intervene in in an upstream subcontractor’s lawsuit against a payment bond surety for allegedly unpaid subcontract sums. It all seems so obvious: the masonry supplier indicates it is unpaid, and the subcontractor to which it supplied materials is saying the same thing and pursuing monies from the general contractor’s surety. Eventually, if the subcontractor prevails against the surety, monies ought to flow to the supplier – a set of facts lending itself to an intervention. The federal district court disagreed, however. Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and prior United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case law the topic, the court opined that the masonry supplier lacked an interest in the subcontractor’s potential recovery that was “related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy…an interest that is ‘direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable.’" 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

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    September 17, 2015 —
    Microsoft Corp. is considering a multibillion-dollar revamp of its headquarters campus in suburban Seattle, seeking to foster more collaboration among employees and attract young engineers, according to people with knowledge of the plans. The software giant has hired architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP as part of the effort at its Redmond, Washington, offices, said the people, who asked not to be named because the plans aren’t public. Skidmore Owings designed Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and is helping Microsoft with a makeover of its much smaller campus in Mountain View, California. Microsoft hasn’t yet decided whether to move forward with the Redmond overhaul, said one of the people familiar with the matter. Reprinted courtesy of Dina Bass, Bloomberg and Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of