BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    EPA Coal Ash Cleanup Rule Changes Send Utilities, Agencies Back to Drawing Board

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

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

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

    Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest

    Fee Simple!

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    Netflix Plans $900M Facility At Former New Jersey Army Base

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

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

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Construction Insurance Rates Up in the United States

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    Faulty Workmanship Claims Amount to Multiple Occurrences

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense
    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

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    October 01, 2014 —
    Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of attending the Triangle USGBC’s “Talk & Walk” at the Wake County Justice Center. The 576,996 square foot Justice Center was completed 6 months early and over 30 million under budget. (The final cost, including soft costs, came in at ~$141,000,000). Now that’s what I call a LEED project done right! Interestingly, the County did not endeavor for a LEED Silver rating– the plan was to aim for a Certification. However, as the process unfolded, the Team kept meeting the goals and points for a Silver certification without any appreciable additional costs. The end result? An “iconic but energy efficient building,” according to Tim Ashby, current Wake County Facilities Project Manager. Tim was initially involved in the Project while working at O’Brien Atkins, which served as the architecture firm for the Project under the direction of Architect Andrew Zwiacher. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    July 19, 2021 —
    The Southern District of California published a decision in May 2021 in Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1921016 (S.D. Cal. 5/12/21) concerning the scope of a breach of contract exclusion in a general liability insurance policy as applied to a construction defect action. The suit was filed by Associated Industries Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company for equitable contribution for amounts spent to defend and indemnify the parties co-insured, referred to as JGCI in the decision. JGCI agreed to build a building for a third party pursuant to a written construction contract. The City of Davis issued a certificate of occupancy for the building on May 6, 2005. The City’s permits stated the building was final on that date. Mt. Hawley issued the first of several annual general liability insurance policies in September 2005. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    March 11, 2024 —
    Ursinus University in Pennsylvania – a “private, nonprofit liberal arts college” – funded a construction project for a new building utilizing monies loaned by the Montgomery County Health and Higher Education Authority, a public economic development authority “formed by the Board of County Commissioners… authorized to issue bonds relative to projects for eligible educational institution such as Ursinus.” Loans up to the amount of $23,000,000 became available to the University, and construction proceeded using the loans as construction funds. At issue: whether a project was to be considered publicly funded project such that prevailing wage rates were required to be paid. IBEW filed a related grievance with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Bureau of Labor Law Compliance, which was refused by the Bureau, on the basis that because work was “financed completely by loans from the Authority, which Ursinus was required to repay in their entirety, the Project was ultimately funded through private sources and exempt from coverage under the [Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act].” A grievance to the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board ensued, and the Board took a different position. 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

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    July 30, 2015 —
    The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Construction Termination Issues for the Architect and Engineer: Part 1– Introduction to the Series

    July 24, 2023 —
    Earlier this year, I was asked to talk to other construction lawyers on the topic of termination. My first question was– whose termination are we talking about here– the architect / engineer? The contractor? Is someone wanting to “fire” the owner? The answer, as it turns out, is — yes. That is, yes, any and all of the above termination topics were on the table. As you may have suspected, even the threat of a termination is bad, bad news. It is the “nuclear option” for a construction project. Everyone risks getting harmed. As the design professional administering a contract, you run a risk of being dragged into litigation no matter what you do. So, how should you proceed? Carefully. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    CSLB Reminds California Public Works Contractors to Renew Their Public Works Registration

    October 02, 2015 —
    A friendly reminder from the Contractors State License Board . . . CSLB Urges Public Works Contractors to Renew Dept. of Industrial Relations Registration before October 1 to Avoid Hefty Penalty SACRAMENTO — A mandatory renewal deadline is approaching for licensees who work on public works projects. Contractors whose registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) expired June 30, 2015, and have ongoing public works projects or plan to bid on new ones, must pay the $300 renewal fee before October 1, 2015, or face an additional $2,000 late penalty after that date. As a result of Senate Bill (SB) 854, all contractors have been required since April 1, 2015, to register with DIR to be awarded a public works contract, even if the project did not go out to bid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (Division 1), in Offerman v. Granada, LLC, 2017 WL 5352664, reversed a trial court order directing specific performance of an alleged option to purchase real property, holding that the alleged option was too indefinite to be specifically performed because the parties did not agree to all of the material terms of the option. Tenant-Purchaser Offerman executed a two-year lease with Landlord-Seller Granada, which granted Offerman “the option to purchase [the] property…for a sales price to be determined at that time by an independent appraiser acceptable to both Tenant and Landlord. (Terms and Conditions to be stipulated by both parties at such time).” (emphasis added). Offerman timely advised Granada he intended to exercise the option, asked Granada to name an appraiser, and, when Granada did not respond, Offerman tendered a $240,000 appraisal to exercise the option. Granada did not retain an appraiser but instead simply demanded $350,000 to close the sale. After a bench trial, the Court determined that Offerman was entitled to specific performance, and, as the parties had not agreed to certain terms, held a second evidentiary hearing to resolve the form of judgment, therein naming a title agency to handle the escrow, setting a closing date, allocating the transaction fees between the parties, and ordering Granada to pay for the property inspection. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    No Damages for Delay May Not Be Enforceable in Virginia

    January 08, 2024 —
    Anyone who reads Construction Law Musings with any regularity (thank you by the way) knows that the contract is king in most instances here in Virginia. Any commercial construction subcontractor in Virginia is likely also very familiar with so-called “no damages for delay” clauses in construction contracts. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. However, in 2015 the Virginia General Assembly passed a change in the law that precluded the diminishment of any right to claims for demonstrated additional costs prior to payment. This left open the question as to which types of “diminishment” would be barred by the statute. The recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, Strata Solar LLC v. Fall Line Construction LLC, added a bit of clarity. 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