BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Ex-Construction Firm That Bought a $75m Michelangelo to Delist

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    Effective Strategies for Reinforcing Safety Into Evolving Design Standards

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    Dozens Missing in LA as High Winds Threaten to Spark More Fires

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Daily Construction Reports: Don’t Leave the Job Without Them

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    For Breach of Contract Claim, There Needs to be a Breach of a Contractual Duty

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    EPA Looks to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Materials With $160M in Grants

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Skyline Cockpit’s Game-Changing Tower Crane Teleoperation

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024
    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

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    June 12, 2023 —
    If a major project is interrupted or canceled, are there any laws that provide protection for unpaid contractors that have performed work? Angela Richie Partner, Co-Chair, Construction Practice Group Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani With the current volatility and uncertainty in the economy, project interruptions and cancellations are on the rise; hence, you need to take steps now to make sure you have a method to get paid for the work you have performed. For private projects, make sure you have followed the pre-lien notification requirements for the state in which the project is located before you start work, if they are required. Then, be sure to follow the lien notice and lien filing requirements for the state. Each state is different, so you want to be ready with the appropriate documentation in advance of the project interruption or cancellation. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    September 21, 2020 —
    Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    October 28, 2011 —

    BusinessWire reports that the Chelsea Court Homeowners Association has settled their construction defect case for $5.4 million. That works out to $169,000 per unit, which BusinessWire describes as “California’s largest per-unit recovery known to be on record to date.”

    Most of the money in the settlement is coming from insurance companies for the builder and thirteen subcontractors. Issues included roof and window leaks, deck failures, and unsafe walkways.

    Read the full story...

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

    Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

    June 21, 2024 —
    Norfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    November 18, 2024 —
    In Summer 2023, the payment system for a small office and warehouse project that Beck Properties was developing for itself in South St. Paul, Minn., seemed to be running smoothly. Emails were criss-crossing back and forth and paper checks were landing in mailboxes. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    January 28, 2014 —
    On January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.” The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.” Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.” Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.” In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.” Read the full story, January 3rd article ... Read the full story, January 25th article ... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    September 10, 2014 —
    An earthquake that struck the California wine country north of San Francisco and flooding in the U.S. last month caused more than $4 billion in economic losses, according insurance broker Aon Plc. (AON) A 6.0-magnitude temblor shook the city of Napa on Aug. 24, damaging more than 1,100 buildings, injuring at least 258 people and causing about $2 billion in economic damages, the London-based broker said today in a report. Insured losses are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, because of the below-average extent of coverage, Aon said. “Residential earthquake insurance penetration rates have gradually lowered in California during the past two decades from 33 percent in 1996 to roughly 10 percent today,” Steve Bowen, associate director and meteorologist for Aon Benfield Impact Forecasting, said in a statement. The Napa quake “serves as a reminder of the unpredictability and costly impacts.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg
    Mr. Buhayar may be contacted at nbuhayar@bloomberg.net

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    August 10, 2020 —
    Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com