BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Huh? Action on Construction Lien “Relates Back” Despite Notice of Contest of Lien

    High Court Case Review Frees Jailed Buffalo Billions Contractor CEO

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Texas Plans a Texas-Sized Response to Rising Seas

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    FAA Plans Final Regulation on Commercial Drone Use by Mid-2016

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

    Miorelli Doctrine’s Sovereign Immunity in Public Construction Contracts — Not the Be-All and End-All

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    Just How Climate-Friendly Are Timber Buildings? It’s Complicated

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    October 16, 2013 —
    The residents of Villa Lago at Renaissance Commons will be relieved of their problems with defective Chinese drywall, according to an announcement from their legal counsel, Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Gary E. Mason, a founding member of the firm, announced to homeowners that remediation would begin on November 1. “The project will start with about 30 units on the top floor and will continue floor by floor for the next 12 months.” Residents will be moved out of their units for about three months while all drywall is removed and replaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

    July 16, 2023 —
    In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    August 17, 2017 —
    AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies

    July 15, 2019 —
    The construction industry is facing one of the most significant labor shortages it has ever seen. This labor shortage has far-reaching implications for worker safety and construction quality—both of which could adversely impact a company’s bottom line if investments are not made to address the issue. What’s causing the labor gap? There are two underlying trends driving this phenomenon:
    1. More experienced workers have either not returned to the industry after the Great Recession or are now retiring as they’ve concluded their careers.
    2. The construction industry has long struggled to attract new, younger workers to the industry, and this problem has only worsened as the broader economy boomed. As a result, construction firms must compete with other industries, such as health care, technology and engineering, for young talent.
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony James & Keith Maciejewski, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

    September 09, 2019 —
    The Department of Defense (DoD) has announced a new five-tier standard for cybersecurity certification, which it calls the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or “CMMC”. Taking an unusual approach to informing the industry, the DoD has provided only limited information about the new standard through its website and a “road tour” led by the newly-appointed head of the DoD’s Chief Information Security Office (CISO), Ms. Katie Arrington. During her recent presentation at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) meeting, on August 8, 2019, Ms. Arrington revealed several new details about the requirements. Outlined below are the most significant facts from that presentation and the DoD’s website:
    All companies doing business with DoD (and all tiers of subcontractors) will need to obtain CMMC certifications.
    DoD will require the new certifications from all contractors (including suppliers and subcontractors) that are performing under a DoD contract. Even contractors that do not process or handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) must obtain CMMCs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexander Gorelik, Smith Currie
    Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    May 15, 2023 —
    Maybe it is another lawyer on your team, a client, the Court. Maybe it is you. Almost every lawyer has heard (or thought, felt, or anguished over) the following: Wait — What? Discovery is going to cost how much? The concern is real. Per a 2019 Southern District of New York opinion:
    1. The average case can involve collection, review and production of 100 gigabytes of data (or 6.5 million pages of Word documents).
    2. At a typical rate of review of 40-60 documents per hour, assuming 100,000 documents are collected, that is about 2,000 hours of attorney review time.
    3. Adding in fees for forensic collection, storage, and processing to maintain metadata can result in a bill totaling $500,000.
    Brown v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 3d 637, 645 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). What's counsel to do? The following four points can help counsel streamline and reduce costs in discovery: (1) know your case, (2) know your data — understand it and document collection, (3) cooperate with counsel, and (4) implement a protocol for electronically-stored information ("ESI"). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Swart, Williams Mullen
    Mr. Swart may be contacted at sswart@williamsmullen.com

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    August 04, 2015 —
    The question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer. In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Salgado may be contacted at salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    May 10, 2017 —
    A company owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has abandoned plans to buy a sprawling industrial site in New Jersey from Honeywell International Inc., a major federal contractor, and develop it into a residential community. Kushner Cos. had been the leading bidder for the 95-acre formerly contaminated site known as Bayfront, which is co-owned by Honeywell and Jersey City, city officials said. The company had submitted plans to build as many as 8,100 housing units to be marketed to Orthodox Jewish residents of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn who are being priced out of that neighborhood. Last fall, the Kushners bid about $150 million, tens of millions higher than competitors, according to people involved in the negotiations. Honeywell heard from others who would only make an offer once the environmental approvals for the cleaned-up site were final. So the bidding is scheduled to reopen later this year and Kushner Cos. had been expected to continue in the process, the people said. But on Tuesday, when Bloomberg News asked about Bayfront, company spokesman James Yolles said the Kushners are no longer pursuing the project. He wouldn’t elaborate or explain. Reprinted courtesy of David Kocieniewski, Bloomberg and Caleb Melby, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of