BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Insurer Must Cover Portions of Arbitration Award

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    Construction Executives Should Be Dusting Off Employee Handbooks

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!

    It’s Time to Change the Way You Think About Case Complexity

    Keeping Up With Fast-moving FAA Drone Regulations

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High

    Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (2/21/24) – Fed Chair Predicts More Small Bank Closures, Shopping Center Vacancies Hit 15-year Low, and Proptech Sees Mixed Results

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019
    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

    Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

    December 29, 2020 —
    Having failed to adequately secure cyber coverage, the insured law firm's lawsuit was properly dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment. Johnson v. Smith Bros. Ins., LLC, 2020 Vt. Unpub. LEXIS 98 (Vt. Sept. 4, 2020). The law firm attended a CLE seminar presented by the Vermont Attorneys Title Insurance Corporation. Scott Garcia, an employee of Smith Brothers, an insurance agency, gave a presentation on professional liability insurance focusing on cybersecurity issues, including fraudulent scams. After the presentation, one of the law firms members spoke with Garcia and expressed an interest in securing a professional malpractice policy with cyber security coverage. Garcia said he would check the firm's current policy, but was confident he could provide better coverage. It was unclear whether the firm ever provided its current policy. A couple of weeks later, the firm submitted an online application for professional liability coverage through the Smith Brothers' website. The application neither referenced the conversation with Garcia nor specifically requested cybersecurity coverage. Smith Brothers then sent the policy covering a one-year period. The policy included coverage for up to $10,000 for losses resulting from a network or security breach in the performance of professional services. A year later, the firm renewed the same policy. 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

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    June 10, 2015 —
    Applying the manifestation trigger, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed denial of coverage where the property damage manifested after the policy period expired. Landry v. Williamson, 2015 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 213 (La. Ct. App. May 1, 2015). On August 28, 2002, the Burkarts purchased a home from the Williamsons. One month later, water started leaking into the home during periods of rainfall. Suit was filed against the contractor, who was insured by Scottsdale. Scottsdale, who was added as a defendant, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it did not insure the developer at the time the alleged property damage occurred. Scottsdale's policy expired on August 1, 2002. The trial court granted Scottsdale's motion, finding coverage under its policy was not triggered because no property damage occurred during the policy period. 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

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    September 10, 2014 —
    Under California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a). What does this mean and who does it include? This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052. There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    January 10, 2018 —
    The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law. While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction. Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. 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

    Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

    May 01, 2023 —
    Arizona residential construction and single-family home production is growing at a rapid pace. And just as fast as the homes are sold, homeowners are constantly seeking warranty repairs from their homebuilders. Despite having strong purchase documents with express warranty language, the Arizona Supreme Court in Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022) adopted a bright line rule that regardless of the contract, the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (“implied warranty”) cannot be disclaimed or waived under any circumstance. The Arizona Supreme Court opinion provides clear guidance of the law in this area on the scope of the implied warranty in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors, specifically on the issue of whether an express warranty can negate and effectively waive the common law implied warranty – which is a definitive violation of public policy. The Zambrano decision involved a licensed real estate broker who bought a new single family home for herself in a newly constructed master planned community in Surprise, AZ. Zambrano entered into a valid sales contract with Scott Homes (homebuilder) which contained a stand-alone 45-page pre-printed form express warranty. The express warranty was to be the “only warranty applicable to the home.” The contract further clarified that the buyer was expressly disclaiming (and, thus, waiving) the implied warranty. The sales documents and express warranty were signed and authorized by Zambrano. A short time later, the home developed alleged “design and construction defects” that were “either time barred or outside the coverage” of the express warranty. Zambrano filed suit for the alleged defects based on the implied warranty. Scott Homes filed summary judgment based on the Zambrano’s waiver and disclaimer of the implied warranty in the purchase agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment and the matter was appealed up to the Arizona Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Stephanie Wilson, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Ms. Wilson may be contacted at swilson@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    September 30, 2011 —

    The LA Times reports that Raoul Germain, a city Los Angeles building inspector has been sentenced to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to taking bribes. Germain was caught as part of an FBI sting operation in which he approved work in exchange for thousands of dollars in bribes. The Times notes that that in some cases, Germain never visited the construction sites. Germain was offered a chance to cooperate with investigators. His lawyer, Steve Cron asked the Times, “What do you think happens to someone who cooperates?”

    In addition to Germain, another city inspector has pleaded guilty to taking bribes and two more employees of the Department of Building and Safety have been fired in connection with the investigation.

    Read the full story…

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

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    November 15, 2017 —
    This country’s infrastructure—bridges, airports, dams and levees—needs wide-scale repair and renewal. The United Kingdom’s new Queensferry Crossing bridge, connecting Edinburgh to Fife in Scotland, sets a new standard for how to do it. The result speaks for itself: The Queensferry Crossing, a three-tower, 1.7-mile-long cable-stayed bridge, debuted in early September well within budget and a manageable eight-month time delay—a rare occurrence among bridges. According to research at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, nine out of 10 fixed links (bridges and tunnels) suffer an average cost overrun of 34% and a time delay of roughly two years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cameron J. Bell, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    August 14, 2023 —
    Last week, I discussed a case (here) that involved a federal district court (trial court) denying a motion to dismiss on a negligent supervision claim. In this same case, the plaintiff, a subcontractor/fabricator, also sued the defendants–parent company of a prime contractor and two entities the prime contractor hired to inspect the subcontractor’s fabricated units–for tortious interference of the subcontractor’s contract with the prime contractor. The defendants moved to dismiss this tortious interference claim which gave rise to another interesting discussion by the trial court relating to the burden to plead and prove tortious interference claims. This discussion is worthy to remember the next time you not only want to plead a tortious interference claim, but want to be in a position to put on evidence to prove the claim at trial.
    “Under Florida law, the elements of a tortious-interference-with-contract claim are: ‘(1) the existence of a contract, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract, (3) the defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach, (4) absence of any justification or privilege, and (5) damages resulting from the breach.’” Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equipment, 2023 WL 4186395 (S.D.Fla. 2023) (citation omitted).
    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