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


    Thank You for 17 Years of Legal Elite in Construction Law

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Construction Insurance Rates Up in the United States

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    Wilke Fleury Attorney Featured in 2022 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Wilke Fleury ranked in Best Lawyers’ Best Law Firms!!

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

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments

    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    November 15, 2017 —
    The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work. The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    March 26, 2014 —
    In Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement. In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    June 28, 2011 —

    While digging for a new steam line at Eastern Michigan University, workers unearthed some old bones. Experts have yet to determine if the bones are human or animal, however Walter Kraft, the EMU vice president of communications, noted that a handle also unearthed might have come from a casket. Cindy Heflin, reporting in AnnArbor.com notes that until 1900 a Catholic cemetery was located in the area. Although the bodies were relocated, these may have been left behind.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    June 12, 2023 —
    If a major project is interrupted or canceled, are there any laws that provide protection for unpaid contractors that have performed work? Angela Richie Partner, Co-Chair, Construction Practice Group Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani With the current volatility and uncertainty in the economy, project interruptions and cancellations are on the rise; hence, you need to take steps now to make sure you have a method to get paid for the work you have performed. For private projects, make sure you have followed the pre-lien notification requirements for the state in which the project is located before you start work, if they are required. Then, be sure to follow the lien notice and lien filing requirements for the state. Each state is different, so you want to be ready with the appropriate documentation in advance of the project interruption or cancellation. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    March 29, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    January 10, 2018 —

    In another of a series of collapse cases arising out of Connecticut, the federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowner's cracked basement wall caused by defective concrete. Liston-Smith v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206211 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2017).

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Tred Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    July 08, 2019 —
    As federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO. Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2] A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    January 22, 2014 —
    The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of