BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

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

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Here's How Much You Can Make by Renting Out Your Home

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    Harmon Tower Case Settled Prior to Start of Trial

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Loaded Boom of Burning Tower Crane Collapses in Manhattan, Injuring Six

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set
    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

    U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

    January 17, 2022 —
    The United States Supreme Court today stayed enforcement of the OSHA emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring employers with 100 or more employees to require employees either be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The ruling immediately stops enforcement of the rule which had gone into effect on January 10, 2022. Today’s order raises significant doubt as to whether the ETS requirement will ever take effect in its current form. A 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court justices issued the profound statement that the parties opposed to the rule “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.” The Court went on to state that the OSH Act does not authorize the agency to “set . . . broad public health measures,” such as the found in the current emergency standard. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    February 19, 2024 —
    We are pleased to announce that Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance coverage partner Andrea DeField was named to the South Florida Business Journal’s 2024 list of Influential Business Women. The award celebrates 25 women who have a strong record of leadership, performance and innovation in their industry, as well as meaningful community involvement. This distinction is well-deserved given Andi’s leadership in the cyber insurance space, contribution to the firm’s pro bono efforts, and longstanding record of community involvement in South Florida. Andi and the other honorees will be featured in the March 15 special issue of the South Florida Business Journal introducing the Influential Business Women of 2024. Congratulations Andi! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    How Many Bridges Does the Chesapeake Bay Need?

    August 03, 2022 —
    Steve Kline, a 7th-generation Marylander, knows well the vacation tradition of driving across the twin spans of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge for trips to the beach resort of Ocean City. His grandfather, an ironworker, helped build the bridge’s first span, which opened in 1952. He’s also very familiar with another seasonal rite: wading through the infamous miles-long traffic backups that last from Memorial Day through the end of summer. But Kline, president of the nonprofit Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, is not on board with the state’s proposed multibillion-dollar fix — a new 4.3-mile-long crossing, to be built alongside the two current spans of the Bay Bridge. In April, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) announced it had received federal approval to use this route for a potential new, wider bridge that would be likely to eventually replace its older siblings, addressing the notorious summer bottlenecks for decades to come. And on June 10, at a press conference held near the bridge’s eastbound ramp, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced that he would commit $28 million in bridge toll revenue to fund the second phase of an environmental impact study on the idea. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ethan McLeod, Bloomberg

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    April 13, 2020 —
    California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    April 14, 2011 —

    Assemblyman John Oceguera has written a bill that would redefine the term Construction Defect, set statutory limitations, and force the prevailing party to pay for attorney’s fees. Assembly Bill 401 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    Currently, the law in Nevada states that “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance, which is done in violation of law, including in violation of local codes or ordinances, is a constructional defect.” However, AB401 “provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that workmanship which exceeds the standards set forth in the applicable law, including any applicable local codes or ordinances, is not a constructional defect.”

    The Nevada courts may award attorney fees to the prevailing party today. However, AB401 mandates that attorney fees must be awarded, and the exact award is to be determined by the Court. “(1) The court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which must be an element of costs and awarded as costs; and (2) the amount of any attorney’s fees awarded must be determined by and approved by the court.”

    AB401 also sets a three year statutory limit “for an action for damages for certain deficiencies, injury or wrongful death caused by a defect in construction if the defect is a result of willful misconduct or was fraudulently concealed.”

    This Nevada bill is in the early stages of development.

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

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

    March 22, 2018 —

    A lienor needs to record its construction lien within 90 days of its final furnishing date. This final furnishing date excludes punchlist, warranty, or the lienor’s own corrective work. A lien recorded outside of the 90-day window will be deemed invalid.

    The opinion in In re: Jennerwein, 309 B.R. 385 (M.D. Fla. 2004) provides a good discussion of this 90-day window. This matter dealt with a debtor / owner’s bankruptcy where the owner was contesting the validity of a construction lien by its pool contractor. The owner contended that the lienor’s lien was recorded outside of this 90-day window thus rendering the lien invalid. The bankruptcy court was determining the validity of the lien.

    In this matter, the owner hired a swimming pool contractor to construct a pool. On October 25, 2002, the pool contractor installed pavers around the pool. After this was performed, the pool contractor realized the owner was unable to obtain the financing to pay for the pool. As a result, the pool contractor ceased doing any more improvements. But, neither the pool contractor nor the owner terminated the contract. Then, on November 27, 2002, the pool contractor sent a supervisor to the property to inspect the pool (work-in-place), the pool equipment, the installed pavers, made a list of the unfinished work, and remove any debris. On January 27, 2003, the pool contractor recorded its lien.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

    August 20, 2019 —
    The Private Works – Preliminary Notice form which contractors, subcontractors and suppliers had become accustomed to using for many years changed in 2004. Despite this change in law, many in the construction industry have still not started using the correct new form. Changes in the law, championed by the American Subcontractors’ Association, gave a significant new benefit to subcontractors and suppliers by giving the subcontractor or supplier some expectation of actually receiving notice of when a Notice of Completion or a Notice of Cessation has been recorded on many private works projects. The law also changed the language of the California Preliminary Notice that subcontractors and suppliers must use to protect their mechanics’ lien, bond claim and stop payment notice rights. If Owners do not send out the Notice of Completion as required by law they incur a diminishing of the protections afforded to them when they record a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation on many private works projects. The revised law requires private project owners to notify all subcontractors and suppliers within 10 days after recording a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation that a Notice of Completion or a Notice of Cessation has actually been recorded. In order to receive such notice, the subcontractor or supplier must properly serve the new form of Preliminary Notice. If this properly occurs and the private project owner provides the required notice, then the subcontractor or supplier will have 30 days to record a Mechanics’ Lien. However, if an owner under such circumstances fails to properly notify a subcontractor or supplier within 10 days after recording a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation, then the Subcontractor or supplier will have 90 days to record a Mechanics’ Lien. The details of the law can be found in California Civil Code sections 8190, 8414 and 8416. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq., Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed

    December 23, 2024 —
    A living shoreline being constructed in the Florida Panhandle's Apalachicola Bay is protecting a critical local highway, while fostering marsh areas and oyster habitat that’s seen years of decline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com