BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

    Unlocking the Hidden Power of Zoning, for Good or Bad

    Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024

    Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

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

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

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

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    What If There Is a Design Error?

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

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

    No Entitlement to Reimbursement of Pre-Tender Fees

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time
    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

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    November 20, 2013 —
    The New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, has ruled that when an insurer disclaims duty to defend, “if the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would have otherwise negated the duty to indemnify.” The insurer who makes a failed claim that there was no duty to defend cannot thereafter claim exclusions. This recent New York decision is discussed by Allen R. Wolff and Eric R. Reed of Anderson Kill in their Policyholder Advisor. They note that the decision “confirms that the estoppel rule applies in New York , as it does in at least four other states.” But this may not be the last word. American Guarantee made a motion for reargument, which the court granted. The case will return to the court in January 2014. They note that “if paying defense costs is the only consequence an insurance company faces for breaching its duty to defend the insured, an insurance company has a financial incentive to ‘kick the can down the road.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    April 20, 2020 —
    Unemployment claims hit a historic high this past week as 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits. To give you some context, this is not only the highest number of unemployment claims ever filed, it is five times higher than the previous record of 695,000 unemployment claims in 1982. Restaurants, hotels, airlines and other businesses have begun to layoff or furlough workers. According to a survey conducted by the Associated General Contractors of America this past week, 39% of respondents reported that project owners have halted or cancelled construction projects due to deteriorating economic conditions, 45% reported project delays or disruptions, and 23% reported supply chain disruptions. While the construction industry likely won’t be impacted nearly to the same degree as the retail sector has, some involved in the construction industry may nevertheless be faced with the prospect of having to lay off or furlough workers as “shelter in place” orders are extended. If you’re faced with that situation here are a few things to remember: Paid Sick Leave Under California law, nearly all employers are required to provide paid sick leave to employees who work for 30 or more days in a given year. Paid sick leave can be used by an employee for illnesses, including COVID-19, the diagnosis, care, or treatment of existing health conditions, and preventative care for the employee or employee’s family member. The important thing to remember here is that use of paid sick leave is an employee’s choice. While an employer, concerned that an employee may have contracted COVID-19, may require that an employee not come to the office, the employer cannot force such an employee to use his or her paid sick leave. For more information, the California Labor Commissioner has created a webpage specific to COVID 19. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    January 29, 2024 —
    Risk-management personnel who are in the business of reviewing and negotiating construction contracts have some simple tools at their disposal to make sure their edits are addressing all of the killer risk-shifting clauses in those contracts. One of those is the index to that document. But not all authors of construction contract documents are kind enough to include an exhaustive index in their form agreements. One of the most popular sets of general conditions, the A201 General Conditions published by the American Institute of Architects, includes one that is fairly comprehensive. It identifies the six terms that include a reference to indemnification, for example. On the other end of the spectrum are the innumerable custom forms created by public and private project owners, and these rarely have an index. Even more powerful than an index is the search or find functions that are available in word processing applications and now in Adobe, the publisher of documents in portable document format, more commonly known as PDF. But with PDF documents, one must be careful to make sure the document under review is in fact searchable. Because every letter counts, it is important to have full confidence in the integrity of the search. Reprinted courtesy of James T. Dixon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    December 31, 2014 —
    In 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch. In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied. Read the full story... Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeal: Privette Doctrine Does Not Apply to Landlord-Tenant Relationships

    March 20, 2023 —
    We’ve talked a fair bit about the Privette doctrine which provides for a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. We’ve also talked about its two exceptions: (1) The Hooker exception which provides for liability if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and its negligent exercise of that control contributed to an employee’s injury; and (2) the Kinsman exception which provides for liability if the hirer knew or should have known of a concealed hazard, that the hired party did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the hirer failed to warn the hired party of the hazard. The Privette doctrine is not the end all be all of landowner liability, however, as discussed in Ramirez v. PK 1 Plaza 580 SC LP, 85 Cal.App.5th 252 (2022). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

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

    December 22, 2019 —
    Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    February 15, 2018 —
    There are many moving parts on a commercial construction project. These range from site surveys to weather events to ordering materials. On most large construction projects, the prime contract and subcontracts are generally drafted ahead of time and hopefully reviewed by both in house personnel and an experienced construction attorney. However, there are situations, particularly where the contract may be one for service or provision of materials where individual purchase orders are issued as opposed to what would likely be looked at as a long form subcontract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    February 26, 2024 —
    NORTH WILDWOOD, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey shore town locked in a legal battle with the state over tens of millions of dollars it has spent trying -- mostly in vain -- to hold back the ocean now is more vulnerable than ever. A recent winter storm destroyed part of the sand dunes in North Wildwood, leaving tiny piles about the size of a child’s sand castle to protect a popular resort town with $2.5 billion worth of private property, and at least that much in government buildings and infrastructure. New Jersey has fined the town $12 million for unauthorized beach repairs that it says could worsen erosion, while the city is suing to recoup the $30 million it has spent trucking sand to the site for over a decade. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg