BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

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

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Los Angeles Warehousing Mecca Halts Expansion Just as Needs Soar

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    Why A Jury Found That Contractor 'Retaliated' Against Undocumented Craft Worker

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

    Extrinsic Evidence, or Eight Corners? Texas Court Sheds Light on Determining the Duty to Defend

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Experts: Best Bet in $300M Osage Nation Wind Farm Dispute Is Negotiation

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    1 De Haro: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Laminated Timber Design and Construction in San Francisco

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality
    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

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

    August 17, 2020 —
    With the lengthy and complex permitting and approval process complete and almost all the other details worked out, construction could begin in mid-November on the estimated $100-million shoring fix for the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco. The perimeter pile upgrade for the 58-story residential condominium building, which has settled more than 17 in. toward the northwest since its completion in 2009, was originally expected to begin earlier this year. Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    November 27, 2013 —
    A recent U.S. District Court case in Colorado highlighted the importance for an insured to read and understand the terms of its insurance policy. The case 2-BT, LLC v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC, Civil Action No. 12CV02167PAB, was a controversy between an insured’s expectations for coverage, and the terms and exclusions of the insurance policy. 2-BT is a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (“HVAC”) contractor, which utilizes soldering devices and heat sources among other tools for its trade. 2-BT needed liability insurance to cover its work, and found a provider, Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC (“PCIC”). 2-BT read PCIC’s online materials, which stated “PCIC’s personalized underwriting process allows us to tailor coverage to properly outfit the contractor with excellent coverage and rates.” 2-BT filled out a policy application, which included a description of the type of HVAC work it performs, initialed several sections, and signed it. One of the initialed paragraphs on the application, “Policy Exclusions,” stated that damages arising from “fungi/bacteria,” “open flame,” and “use of heating devices,” was not covered. PCIC issued a policy to 2-BT, which included a section titled, “Additional Exclusions” that excluded coverage for mold and damage related to heating elements among others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bret Cogdill
    Bret Cogdill can be contacted at cogdill@hhmrlaw.com

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    May 20, 2015 —
    According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, the combination of low interest rates and home prices has provided a “solid boost in nationwide affordability in the first quarter of 2015.” Furthermore, “66.5 percent of new and existing homes sold between the beginning of January and end of March were affordable to families earning the U.S. median income of $65,800.” Syracuse, New York remained the U.S.’s most affordable major housing market, while the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California region was the nation’s least affordable major housing market. All five of the least affordable small housing markets were in California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    March 23, 2020 —
    How are delay damages treated when two subcontractors cause a mutual or concurrent delay to the project? Assume multiple subcontractors concurrently contributed to an impact to the critical path resulting in a delay to the project. The delay caused the prime contractor to: (1) be assessed liquidated damages from the owner and (2) incur extended general conditions. The prime contractor will be looking to the subcontractors for reimbursement for any liquidated damages it is assessed along with its extended general conditions costs. There is really no great case that addresses this point when two (or more) subcontractors mutually or concurrently delay the project. It is also not uncommon, and frankly expected, that a subcontractor will point the finger at another subcontractor for the cause of the delay or that another subcontractor was concurrently delaying the project. The prime contractor should absolutely, without any exception, undertake efforts with a scheduling consultant to allocate the delay caused by subcontractors. Taking an approach that joint and several liability applies between multiple subcontractors and/or not trying to apportion delay because the subcontractors concurrently delayed the critical path at the same time is probably not the best approach. The prime contractor should have an expert render an opinion as to the allocation of the delay period amongst responsible subcontractors that delayed the critical path. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a mistake. 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

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    December 22, 2019 —
    On August 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving a claim for coverage for a personal injury action involving injuries suffered on a construction site. The plaintiff in the underlying action was performing excavation in a basement of a building in Manhattan so the owner could install a pool. During the course of the excavation plaintiff fell 13 feet from a plank, into the excavated pit, suffering serious injuries. Traub Lieberman’s client issued a CGL policy to the building owner and the insured sought coverage for the suit under that policy. The insurer denied coverage based on an endorsement to the policy that stated the insured could only contract directly with a specified general contractor. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor and the insurer believed the insured had contracted directly with that unapproved subcontractor. The insured denied it had done, contending the subcontractor had been hired by the general contractor identified in the endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

    May 07, 2014 —
    As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Technica LLC ex rel. U.S. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 12-56539, 2014 WL 1674108 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014), allowed an unlicensed subcontractor to recover from a prime contractor for unpaid services relating to a federal construction project under a federal Miller Act claim. California law otherwise prevents unlicensed contractors from recovering for unpaid work on non-federal projects as a penal measure intended to encourage contractors to maintain a valid license at all times. Technica LLC (“Technica”) worked as a sub-subcontractor on a large federal fence replacement project (the “Project”). Over the course of a year, Technica supplied nearly a million dollars worth of labor, materials, and services for the Project. However, Technica received only $287,861.81 in partial payments for its work. Technica proceeded to file suit in district court against the prime contractor Candelaria Corporation (“Candelaria”) and its payment surety Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“CCIC”) under the Miller Act to recover amounts owed to it on the subcontract against the payment bond. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    February 23, 2017 —
    Strategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted. 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

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    February 14, 2013 —
    The North State Building Industry Association has looked back at 2012, and feels that they are “well-positioned to addressed future challenges in 2013 and beyond.” The organization, which represents home builders in Northern California, had several major accomplishments in 2012. The NSBIA has managed to reduce fees that builders must pay. Due to their work with the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Area Sewer District over the last several years, a new rate and fee methodology has been adopted, saving builders $3,000 per single family unit in SRCSD fees and $1,000 per acre in SASD fees. Fees were also reduced through agreements with the Folsom Cordova unified and Elk Grove school districts. The city of Rancho Cordova reduced its transportation fee by $3,500 per home. In addition to their advocacy work, the NSBIA has continued its worker training programs. During 2012, 113 people participated in their Journeyman Upgrade classes, an increase of 20 from the prior year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of