BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut engineering 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


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

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Houston’s High Housing Demand due to Employment Growth

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Let’s Get Surety Podcast – #126 Building the Future: AI, Construction and Law

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Wilke Fleury Welcomes New Civil Litigation Attorney

    Five Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2021

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

    U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco and Cleveland Take Home Top Industry Honors

    Can Your Industry Benefit From Metaverse Technology?

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly

    CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

    Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Price Escalation Impacts

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory
    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

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    October 21, 2013 —
    A school in Wales may have to close due to roof leaks. The school was opened six years ago, but since then the leaks at Ysgol Ffynnonbedr are “leading to the deterioration of the structure and fabric of the school.” The Lampeter city council have budgeted £35,000 (about $56,000) for repairs to the roof. The leaks have already rendered some of the electrical systems and teaching areas unusable. The city council had been in discussion with the builders, Cowlin Construction, when that firm was bought by Balfour Beatty. Balfour Beatty did not comment to the Cambrian Times about resolving the construction defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    April 28, 2014 —
    Billionaire Stephen Ross’s Related Cos. new project in the sleepy end of downtown Los Angeles is designed to invigorate Grand Avenue the way its Time Warner Center helped energize New York’s Columbus Circle. “The notion of bringing together this diverse mix of uses, and allowing for a lot of public spaces and public events, has proven to be very powerful in the right locations and with the right planning.” said William Witte, president of Related’s California division. The New York-based firm formed a joint venture with Los Angeles-based SBE Entertainment Group LLC to restart plans for a $650 million-to-$700 million complex with entertainment, shopping, apartments, condominiums and a luxury hotel, Witte said. After going back and forth with local officials for most of the past year, Related won approval in January for the Frank Gehry-designed project from Los Angeles County supervisors. Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    July 13, 2020 —
    On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    May 03, 2017 —
    In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.” In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis. Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    April 28, 2014 —
    The court found coverage for damage resulting from faulty workmanship. Drury Co. v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Counsel, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 319 (Mo. Ct. App. March 25, 2014). The School District entered a contract with general contractor, Penzel Construction Company, Inc., to build an addition to a high school. Under the prime contract, the School District was to purchase property insurance, including builder's risk "all-risk" coverage. The policy was to cover the interests of the owner, the contractor, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors in the project. The School District obtained a policy from Missouri United School Insurance Counsel (MUSIC). Exclusions in the all-risk policy included loss due to faulty workmanship or materials, "unless loss by a peril not otherwise excluded ensues and then MUSIC shall be liable only for such ensuing loss." 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

    Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

    September 24, 2014 —
    In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties. Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney. In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    December 03, 2024 —
    It is instructive to review the Supreme Court’s record in its most recent term, concentrating on regulatory and administrative law cases, which are usually back-burner issues. But not this term. The Supreme Court began the current term on October 7, 2024. The Court has already chosen many cases to review in the new term, and it promises to be as interesting as the 2023 term, which produced several significant rulings affecting regulatory and administrative law, chiefly the Loper Bright Enterprises ruling. Loper Bright overturned the Court’s landmark administrative law ruling of Chevron, USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Background to Loper Bright In 1984, the Supreme Court decided Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council. (See 467 U.S. 839 (1984).) The unanimous decision, written by Justice Stevens, reversed then-D.C. Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ruling that set aside EPA’s Clean Air Act “bubble policy,” which was intended to provide regulatory relief from certain EPA permitting requirements. 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

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    July 09, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that it costs more to build a green home, however, builder’s experience with green techniques reduces costs. According to McGraw Hill Construction survey data (as quoted by Eye on Housing), “the incremental cost for builders to construct green homes was 8% in 2013. For remodelers, green projects raised costs by 9% on average.” Furthermore, “McGraw Hill’s analysis found that the cost to build green varied to some degree by the amount of green construction undertaken.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of