BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

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

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Calling Hurricanes a Category 6 Risks Creating Deadly Confusion

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Motion to Dismiss in Bronx County Trip and Fall

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

    Billion-Dollar Power Lines Finally Inching Ahead to Help US Grids

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

    Designing the Process to Deliver Zero-Carbon Construction – Computational Design in Practice

    There is No Claims File Privilege in Florida, Despite What Insurers Want You to Think

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    AI-Powered Construction Optioneering Today

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban

    Workarounds for Workers' Comp Immunity: How to Obtain Additional Insured Coverage when the Named Insured is Immune from Suit
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    April 05, 2017 —
    Crews from C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., Marietta, Ga., are removing debris from an Interstate 85 bridge in Atlanta that collapsed during a March 30 rush-hour fire. No injuries were reported, but the incident forced an extended closure of the highway section. Investigators say the fire was intentionally set inside a fenced Georgia Dept. of Transportation surplus equipment storage area beneath the structure, and it intensified after spreading to a stockpile of polyethylene and fiberglass conduit. Flames and high temperatures subsequently compromised the bridge’s structural integrity. Authorities have charged one individual with arson and first-degree criminal damage to property, while two others were cited for criminal trespass. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    November 11, 2024 —
    Deadlines are an inescapable part of the construction industry. Bid deadlines. Submittal deadlines. Material delivery deadlines. Substantial completion. Final completion. And so, inevitably, fighting about deadlines becomes a necessary byproduct. Was the deadline really a deadline? Was the schedule slippage on the critical path? Should there be an equitable extension to the date of substantial completion? Given the amount of attention and concern conferred on deadlines, those drafting construction contracts naturally seek to clarify which deadlines really matter with the inclusion of notice and timing provisions. A contract’s change order and claims procedures are often a key friction point for those drafting and administering the contract. Should there be a requirement for prior written notice of a claim for cost/time relief? How much advance notice? Who should the request be sent to? Is a specific form of notice required? What are the consequences of failing to provide timely notice? A practitioner should pay careful attention to negotiating these terms on the front end, because rest assured, these contract provisions will garner scrutiny when a change order dispute boils over. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    August 23, 2021 —
    Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and local governments have adopted varying moratoria on evictions, enacted as emergency legislative protections for tenants facing eviction. The federal moratorium on eviction, promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is set to expire on July 31. While the Supreme Court recently left the moratorium in place, the Court signaled that it would likely be held unconstitutional if extended and challenged again. With the sole federal moratorium expiring, state and local protections may remain in effect; however, many of these local orders are also beginning to expire. Washington, DC’s eviction moratorium, one of the most tenant-friendly pieces of emergency legislation in the country, is one such example, beginning a phaseout process that allows the pace of evictions to slowly begin throughout 2021 before a final legislative sunset in February 2022. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council of the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser enacted a series of public health emergency legislation. Under the Coronavirus Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, the Council put a pause on evictions for nonpayment of rent or violations of lease provisions, prohibiting landlords from filing a complaint to evict a tenant who detained “possession of real property without right” or whose “right to possession has ceased.” Under the moratorium, the Council effectively banned residential evictions, unless a court found that a tenant had performed an “illegal act” within the rental unit, that the tenant was causing undue hardship on the health, welfare, and safety of other tenants or neighbors, or that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The moratorium and other tenant-protections were initially set to remain in place indefinitely, expiring 60 days after the end of Mayor Bowser’s declared COVID-19 emergency period. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    January 06, 2020 —
    The constant political back-and-forth in British Columbia, Canada, over how to deal with an aging George Massey Tunnel, opened in 1959, has ping-ponged from uncertainty to a $3.5 billion, 10-lane bridge, back to uncertainty, to no bridge and now to an eight-lane submerged tunnel. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    May 06, 2019 —
    In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    January 06, 2016 —
    Manhattan home prices surged to a record in the fourth quarter, propelled by closings of luxury deals in new developments that were agreed to years ago, when construction was just starting on many of the buildings. The median price of all completed co-op and condominium purchases in the borough jumped 17 percent from a year earlier to $1.15 million, the highest in 27 years of record-keeping, according to a report Tuesday by appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. That tops the previous peak of $1.03 million, set in the second quarter of 2008, before the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. triggered a plunge in property prices and a near standstill in sales. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    January 19, 2017 —
    Upcoming blog posts will focus on common contract provisions found in construction contracts. Such provisions are not solely limited to construction contracts and can be found in many other types of business contracts as well. This post will highlight indemnity clauses. An indemnity clause is a common contract provision used to allocate risk between parties to a contract. The clause obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to protect the other party (the Indemnitee) from certain losses, typically arising from claims of third parties. It may require the Indemnitor to reimburse the Indemnitee for losses or expenses, or satisfy judgments, or even defend the Indemnitee in a lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    September 10, 2014 —
    Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of