BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal
    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

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    October 11, 2017 —
    Lawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne and Jonathan Woy Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

    November 13, 2023 —
    I have discussed the need for attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my construction contract basics posts. Why would you want such a provision? The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision. Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs. In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise. While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia. Throw in the fact that Virginia courts strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    June 09, 2016 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JUNE 6, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys, Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick and Michael B. McClellan were selected to the Southern California Super Lawyers 2016 Rising Stars list for business litigation. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the July 2016 issues of Super Lawyers Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and Orange Coast magazine. In addition, twelve of the firm’s Newport Beach attorneys were selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers list, an honor given to no more than five percent of the lawyers in California. Michael S. Cucchissi, Real Estate Mark S. Himmelstein, Construction Litigation Jane M. Samson, Real Estate Jeffrey M. Dennis, Construction Litigation Charles S. Krolikowski, Eminent Domain Robert K. Scott, Insurance Coverage Gregory L. Dillion, Business Litigation Thomas F. Newmeyer, Business Litigation Michael J. Studenka, Employee Litigation: Defense Joseph A. Ferrentino, Construction Litigation John A. O'Hara, Construction Litigation Carol S. Zaist, Business Litigation Making the list since it was originally published in 2004 is co-founding litigation partner Greg Dillion who was again selected to the Top 50: 2016 Orange County Super Lawyers List. In addition, Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick, Jane M. Samson and Carol S. Zaist were listed in the 2016 Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same selection process except a candidate must be either 40 years old and younger or in practice for 10 years or less. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    August 26, 2019 —
    By 2050, 70 percent of world’s population of almost 10 billion people will live in urban areas. The presenters at the High Rise – Northern Exposure seminar envisioned how high-rise construction will meet the requirements of urbanization, and what technologies have to offer to builders and users today. A line-up of high-rise specialists shared their insights with a keen audience in Otaniemi, Finland, on June 25, 2019. The conference was a co-operation between The Glass Performance Days (GPD) 2019, Aalto University, and the Glass Innovation Institute. Peter Smithson of BG&E Facades and Kimmo Lintula of Aalto University co-hosted the event. After welcoming words from Jorma Vitkala, the chairman of GDP, the first four presentations were by architects; one from the USA, two from Finland, and one from Australia. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    October 07, 2016 —
    Owners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home. ENTER THE UTPCPL On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    January 24, 2014 —
    The new LG headquarters project in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, has been challenged by various environmental groups because of what the groups see “as a blight on the Hudson River landscape,” according to the New York Times. The problem isn’t the building itself, but the proposed height of the tower: LG “plans to construct eight stories, 143 feet total, in an area previously zoned for a maximum of 35 feet. The height restriction was first lifted through a variance, which has been challenged in State Superior Court in one of two lawsuits filed to protect the view. Subsequently the land was rezoned to allow for a taller building.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a New Jersey conservation group are continuing to fight against the removal of the height restriction. “This is like if somebody tried to build a high-rise next to Yellowstone,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview with the New York Times. “It’s a national issue.” However, there is also local support for this project, “which LG has said will be environmentally sensitive and produce jobs,” reported the New York Times. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    March 19, 2015 —
    Candice B. Macario of Gordon & Rees LLP analyzed the case Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, and stated that “[i]n his case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.” Macario recommended “as lawsuits are filed close to the ten year statute of repose, one area to explore in a single issue case is if you can eliminate a cause of action based on patent defects. Moreover, in multi-issue cases for several construction defects, parties should always be aware of analyzing whether issues can be identified as patent and perhaps used as a tool in negotiations, settlement discussions or pre-trial motions.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    August 31, 2020 —
    Los Angeles Partner Alexis G. Crump has been recognized with a 2020 Lawyer Monthly "Women in Law Award." In receiving this honor, Ms. Crump joins an elite group of women from around the world who have influenced the legal profession with their experience and expertise. Lawyer Monthly’s "Women in Law Awards" emerged as one of the first industry awards to celebrate the achievements and contributions made by women working globally in the legal sector and in business. Recognizing women at all levels of seniority, the publication seeks to acknowledge the challenges that female legal professionals regularly overcome to serve their clients and perform at their best. “It is an honor to be recognized alongside so many outstanding and accomplished women. I look forward to continuing to support my colleagues in their work and participating in the global network of female attorneys,” Ms. Crump said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Crump, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Crump may be contacted at Alexis.Crump@lewisbrisbois.com