BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/24/22) – Local Law 97, Clean Energy, and IRA Tax Credits

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    ‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm

    Storm Eunice Damage in U.K. Could Top £300 Million

    $31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway

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

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    Texas Legislative Update

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even
    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

    Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

    November 18, 2024 —
    When you enter into a contract with a homebuilder, particularly a tract homebuilder, please consider two things when it comes to dispute resolution: (1) your purchase-and-sale agreement likely contains an arbitration provision, and (2) your limited warranty agreement you get in connection with closing likely also reinforces the arbitration provision, especially with warranty claims governed by the limited warranty agreement. This dispute resolution is important because it means the homebuilder wants disputes resolved through the arbitration process and NOT through the litigation process (where the nature of disputes and allegations are public). Look, there are pros and cons with arbitration, no different than litigation. Arbitrating a dispute is not necessarily a bad thing, and with certain disputes, ideal. There is no right to appeal in arbitration, but the dispute should resolve itself quicker than litigation, and you’ll have more control over the decision maker, i.e., the arbitrator. 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

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    September 05, 2022 —
    Ever since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim. Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
    • Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
    • Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
    • Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
    • Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    May 18, 2020 —
    The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    September 18, 2023 —
    With the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy. A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    July 21, 2018 —
    Here at Musings, I sometimes feel as if I am beating the “contract is king” drum to death. However, each time I start to get this feeling, a new case out of either the Virginia state courts or the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals here in Richmond reminds me that we all, lawyers and contractors alike, need to be reminded of this fact on a regular basis. The terms written into a construction contract (or any other contract for that matter) will control the outcome of any dispute in just about every case. A recent 4th Circuit case takes this to the extreme in pointing out the the choice which of two tiny words can change the entire set of procedural rules and even the courthouse in which your dispute will be decided. In FindWhere Holdings Inc. v. Systems Env. Optimization LLC, the Fourth Circuit looked at a forum selection clause found in a contract between the parties. In this case, the clause stated that any dispute would be litigated in the courts “of the State of Virginia.” When the defendants tried to remove the case from Virginia state court to the Eastern District of Virginia federal courts, the federal court remanded the case, sending it back to the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    January 11, 2021 —
    We are 10 months into the global pandemic. Given the magnitude of additional costs and upended expectations and risk-allocation, we foresee a wave of disputes coming soon. Whether it is large or small depends heavily on how well project team members handle the COVID-19 project impacts now. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring (ENR) and Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring (ENR) Ms. Bachman may be contacted at mbachman@crowell.com Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at joshlindsay@crowell.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    June 18, 2019 —
    In an important ruling for Texas businesses, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the TCEQ misapplied the Texas property tax’s exemption for specified pollution control equipment. Since 1993, the Texas Constitution has included a provision which authorizes the Texas Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation “all or part of real and personal property used … wholly or partly … for the control or reduction of air, water or land pollution.” This provision is implemented by Section 11.31 of the Texas Tax Code, which is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (See the rules at Title 30, Chapter 17 of the Texas Administrative Code.) If the Executive Director of the TCEQ determines that the equipment is used wholly or partly for pollution control, he issues a “positive use determination”; in the event it does not, the Executive Director issues a “negative use determination and rejects the application for the exemption. In 2007, Section 11.31 was amended at 11.31 (k) to list several items of equipment that are presumed to be pollution-control equipment, including “heat recovery steam generators” or HRSGs. This equipment is used by powerplants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are the product of generation of electricity. Several applications were submitted to the TCEQ by the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, seeking a tax exemption for its HRSG units. In July 2012, the TCEQ denied these applications, with the flat declaration that HRSGs are not pollution-control equipment—“they are used solely for production.” The Brazos Cooperative sued the Commission, and on May 3, 2019, in the case of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. TCEQ, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the Commission, and the lower court (the Eight Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso) that affirmed the Commission’s action. 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

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    August 26, 2015 —
    Apartments for very wealthy New Yorkers have remained mostly within the city’s smallest borough. Until now. The record price for a Brooklyn home broke the $15 million threshold this summer, and by now it’s widely accepted that New York’s outer boroughs are not much of a bargain, growing further out of reach for the aspiring homeowner. The rush of new construction in gentrifying neighborhoods has pushed up the price of land, and that’s caused construction costs to rise, too. Eventually, to make a profit, developers have to build luxury buildings, according to Jonathan Miller, the president of New York appraiser Miller Samuel. “We have this perfect storm,” he says. “Everybody gets the same idea at the same time, so materials and labor are at a premium. Throw in the high price of land at each locale, and you’ve got to build a luxury product.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of