BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil 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


    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

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

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Unesco Denies Claim It Cleared Construction of Zambezi Dam

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Hawaii Supreme Court Reaffirms an "Accident" Includes Reckless Conduct, Finds Green House Gases are Pollutants

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/16/24) – Chevron Ruling’s Impact on Construction Industry, New Kind of Public Housing and Policy Recommendations from Sustainable Building Groups

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

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

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Illinois Supreme Court Rules Labor Costs Not Depreciated to Determine Actual Cash Value

    November 19, 2021 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court determined that a homeowner insurer may not depreciate labor costs in calculating actual cash value (ACV) after a loss under the policy. Sproull v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2021 Ill. LEXIS 619 (Ill. Sept. 23, 2021). Plaintiff was insured under a homeowner's policy that provided replacement cost coverage for structural damage. Under the policy, the insured would initially receive an ACV payment but then could receive replacement cost value (RCV) if repairs or replacement were completed within two years and the insurer was timely notified. The policy did not define "actual cash value." Plaintiff suffered wind damage to his residence and timely submitted a property damage claim to State Farm. The adjuster determined that the building sustained a loss with RCV of $1711.54. In calculating ACV, State Farm began with the RCV and then subtracted plaintiff's $1000 deductible and an additional $394.36, including taxes, for depreciation. Plaintiff thus received an ACV payment of $317.18. Plaintiff claimed that he was underpaid on his ACV claim because State Farm depreciated labor, which is intangible and thus not subject to wear, tear, and obsolescence. Further, labor should not have been depreciated because it was not susceptible to aging or wearing and its value did not diminish over time. 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

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    November 07, 2022 —
    This weekend was all about The Rise of Gru. I love Gru so much that when my children ask for money, my best Gru-like voice belts back: “Now, I know there have been some rumors going around that the bank is no longer funding us….In terms of money, we have no money.” And that’s precisely what many lenders say on distressed projects when the owner fails to make final payment and the contractor looks to the bank for funding: “We have no money for you contractor!” In BCD Associates., LLC v. Crown Bank, CA No. N15c-11-062 (Super. Ct. Del, May 2, 2022), the trial court found that when a bank pays a contractor directly, it can create a legally binding relationship subject to the terms of the construction loan agreements with the owner. The project involved a $13m construction loan between the lender and the owner to renovate a hotel. The owner and contractor entered into an AIA Contract for the construction management services. During construction the contractor would submit payment applications to the lender, who would review and approve the invoices for payment. The lender then would pay 90% of the approved payment application and hold back the remaining 10% as retainage. The contractor was supposed to be paid the final retainage upon completion, which it did not receive in accordance with the terms of the AIA Contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

    Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

    March 30, 2020 —
    The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a global disruption to businesses, causing many to temporarily close and lay off employees. As businesses assess the short– and long–term economic impact of COVID-19, they should also evaluate what contractual obligations and remedies are available under various agreements (e.g., leases, vendor agreements, and supply agreements). When performance may be delayed or may not occur altogether, businesses should consider their force majeure clauses, if any, and the doctrines of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose. Force Majeure Generally, unless a contract provides that performance will be suspended or relieved when certain events occur (e.g., “acts of God,” government regulation, acts of war or terror, strikes), each party is obligated to perform. However, when there is an express force majeure provision, certain events or acts may excuse non-performance or delayed performance. But depending on the jurisdiction, courts may construe force majeure provisions narrowly and excuse performance only for those events expressly listed in the clause. Nonetheless, if the force majeure provision includes pandemic, epidemic, quarantine, government act, disease, or similar terms, then the COVID-19 pandemic may excuse performance or allow delayed performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    September 17, 2018 —
    The tally of how many defective cross-laminated timber panels need replacement on a $79-million college of forestry building under construction at Oregon State University is almost complete, nearly six months after two layers of a seven-layer CLT floor panel, 30 ft x 4 ft, came unglued and crashed 14 ft from the third to the second floor of the three-story building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    July 25, 2021 —
    The shift towards a “greener” environment has resulted in cities and states implementing electrification mandates, which will have a major impact on both current and future building design. Currently, most commercial and residential end users are already all-electric. However, there are some exceptions, such as space and water heating, that use a significant amount of energy. Several states, including California and New York, have cities that have introduced legislation requiring new construction to be all-electric. This means, for example, using electricity for heating rather than fossil fuels such as natural gas. Mandate or not, building owners and developers should consider the risks and rewards of an all-electric design. General Rewards
    • Reaching Climate Goals: As part of the Clean Energy Plan, as described in a previous post, President Biden has created a goal for the United States of achieving a carbon pollution-free American utility sector by 2035. Because residential and commercial building account for 40 percent of energy consumption in the United States, all-electric building designs will help governments and businesses reach the ambitious climate goals that have been set for the coming years.
    Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    July 28, 2018 —
    I have spoken often regarding the need for a well written construction contract that sets out the “terms of engagement” for your construction project. A written construction contract sets expectations and allows the parties to the contract to determine the “law” of their project. An unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” can lead to confusion, faulty memories, and more money paid to construction counsel than you would like as we lawyers play around in the grey areas. One other area where the written versus unwritten distinction makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations. In Virginia, a 5 year statute of limitations applies to written contracts while a 3 year statute of limitations applies to unwritten contracts. This distinction came into stark relief in the case of M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court. In M&C Hauling, M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited in 2014, the last of which was in July. M&C provided over 2000 hours of hauling and provided time tickets (that were passed to Mr. Hale on Hauling Unlimited letterhead and signed by Mr. Hale or his agent) and an invoice stating the price term of $75.00 per hour. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Mr. Hale existed. 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

    No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

    January 08, 2024 —
    In a coverage dispute between two insurers over a claim for damages caused by faulty workmanship, the court found there was no right to equitable contribution or indemnity. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Mallcraft, Inc., 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 67568 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 2023). Mallcraft was the general contractor for a building project and was sued for construction defects. Travelers was an additional insured under a policy issued to a subcontractor, KitCor. Travelers defended Mallcraft in an arbitration. Travelers sought equitable contribution and equitable indemnity from Hartford, Mallcraft's insurer. Mallcraft and Travelers stiulated to a judgment agianst Mallcraft for all costs Travelers incurred in the arbitration. Travelers' insured, KitCor, was not implicated in the construction defect claims against Mallcraft. The judgment set forth findings, including the fact that the underlying plaintiff never made any claim that KitCor perfomred work on the project or casued property damage. 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

    Insurer Has No Obligation to Cover Arbitration Award in Construction Defect Case

    May 22, 2023 —
    The court determined there was no coverage for an adverse arbitration decision suffered by the insured in a construction defect case. Am. Fire and Cas. Co. v. Unforgettable Coatings, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64846 (D. Nev. April 13, 2023). Unforgettable contracted with Muirfield Village Homeowner's Association for painting and related services. Following completion of the project, Muirfield alleged that Unforgettable's work was defective and filed suit. The parties agreed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that Unforgettable breached the contract and its implied warranty. Damages were awarded to Muirfield. American Fire and Casualty Company (AFCC) was Unforgettable's insurer and defended Unforgettable at the arbitration. AFCC sued for a declaration that it had no obligation to indemnify Unforgettable for the damages awarded. Unforgettable and Murifiled counterclaimed, alleging that AFCC breached the policy by not covering the award, as well as a variety of extracontractual claims related to the investigation process. AFCC moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. 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