BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Illinois Court Determines Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell
    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. Drawing 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

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    January 10, 2018 —
    Argument before the Court of Appeals has now been scheduled for February 7, 2018, in Gilbane Building Co. v. St. Paul Insurance, with a long anticipated decision by New York’s highest court to be issued shortly thereafter. In its September 18, 2017 edition, Law360.com highlighted three major cases with significant implications on insurance coverage that will soon be decided by the New York Court of Appeals. Gilbane presents an opportunity for the Court to address the growing number of divergent decisions regarding the prerequisites for qualifying as an additional insured, as it considers an Appellate Division’s holding that a construction manager is not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a contractor’s policy because the two companies did not enter into a direct contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com

    City of Seattle Temporarily Shuts Down Public Works to Enforce Health and Safety Plans

    April 13, 2020 —
    The Governor’s Stay Home, Stay Safe Order mandates that essential businesses must establish and implement social distancing and sanitation measures established by OSHA and the WA State DOH: With construction work continuing on essential construction projects, some jurisdictions, such as the City of Seattle, are taking additional steps to enforce and oversee the establishment and implementation of updated Health and Safety plans on construction projects. The City of Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan announced yesterday a two-day temporary suspension of Public Works construction beginning on Thursday, April 9th, to conduct health and safety training for workers and update protocols. The announcement may be viewed here. The City of Seattle also sent a letter in this regard and asked all contractors and owners provide project-specific responses to the Washington Building Trades COVID-19 Construction Industry Emergency Requirements. Herein are the links to the letter and attached requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at masaki.yamada@acslawyers.com

    2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

    October 15, 2024 —
    For a number of years we have had the honor to serve as update authors for several publications of California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB). I didn’t realize it until now but the CEB, a program of the University of California, was started more than 75 years ago following WWII to provide veterans who were attorneys with practical guidance on changes to the law as they returned to their practices following the war. Pretty cool! Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    March 19, 2024 —
    It has long been the law in Washington that contracting parties are free to draft contractual indemnity agreements to allocate risk arising from performance of the work, and Courts will generally enforce those agreements as written. This well-settled principle was recently reaffirmed in King County v. CPM Development Corp., dba ICON Materials[1] a decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, wherein one party to an indemnity agreement attempted to evade its contractual obligations by arguing that certain common law indemnity principles supersede the written terms. This appeal followed a multi-week jury trial from which the client and Ahlers Cressman and Sleight legal team, including Lindsay Watkins, Klien Hilliard, and Christina Granquist, obtained a seven-figure judgment in the client’s favor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs. ICON was the general contractor on a Vashon Island Highway Pavement project for King County. Part of the work on the project involved hauling away and disposing of ground milled asphalt (the “millings”) at King County-approved sites. ICON and D&R Excavating Inc., (“D&R”) executed a subcontract for D&R to perform that work. The subcontract incorporated the contract between ICON and King County, including the obligation to stockpile millings only at approved sites. D&R, however, did not obtain the requisite approvals from King County, and placed the millings at various sites on the Island, including locations that King County explicitly rejected. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    January 29, 2014 —
    Construction of the New American Home in Las Vegas, Nevada, to be completed for the 2014 International Builders’ Show, has faced enormous challenges, according to Jennifer Goodman writing for Big Builder. Josh Anderson, owner of Element Building Co., told Goodman “he couldn’t have imagined what lay ahead when he signed on in fall 2012 to the project, which is co-sponsored by BUILDER and the NAHB.” Challenges began during the “design phase” when Anderson “was troubled by the sitting of the house on its lot in the tony Sky Terrace subdivision.” Furthermore, he “balked at the floor plan, which encompassed a traditional design aesthetic and opulent touches.” The project’s architect, Barry Berkus, passed away in late 2012, and his son, Jeffrey Berkus, took over for him. After the plans were “complete and approved by the city,” a labor shortage in Las Vegas made it “particularly difficult to find skilled framers.” The shortage also increased labor costs. Anderson also contended with weather anomalies: “Over the summer, the area set a record for the most consecutive wet days in 30 years. Winds blew sawdust and rain into the open structure, ruining 350 sheets of drywall and slowing down construction,” according to Big Builder. The “mammoth project” is close to completion. Anderson told Big Builder, “I’ve always been a sucker for a challenge.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    November 21, 2017 —
    Welcome to the Construction Defect Journal’s special Thanksgiving edition. The CDJ staff has compiled the most important and interesting stories so far from 2017. From Supreme Court decisions to state construction defect law shake ups, this week’s edition showcases significant construction defect industry changes. With a mug of hot spiced cider in hand, relax and reflect on what has happened in our industry so far in 2017. CDJ wishes to give thanks to its amazing contributors and readers. It’s due to your efforts and support that CDJ is able to present a weekly summary of what is happening in the construction defect industry. We hope you enjoy this special edition, and wish you and your family a fun and festive Thanksgiving holiday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    February 01, 2021 —
    The U.S. Energy Dept. has cancelled a $13-billion, 10-year contract awarded just a few months ago to a team led by BWXT Technical Services and Fluor Federal Services to manage millions of gallons of radioactive waste stored underground at its Hanford, Wash., former weapons site—confirming plans for a major scope expansion and lengthy reprocurement but sharing few details. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    May 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

    After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

    KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

    Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

    As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

    While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

    ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

    In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

    Read the court’s decision…

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