BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Remodel Gets Pricey for Town

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

    Fine Art Losses – “Canvas” the Subrogation Landscape

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    A Trivial Case

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun

    Meet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 Leaders

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

    Default Should Never Be An Option

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith
    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

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    July 21, 2018 —
    Jason Poore, an associate in the General Litigation Group, recently received the 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award during the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel’s annual meeting. The Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award honors “a young lawyer who best exemplifies the qualities of professionalism and dedication as defense counsel in the practice of law and in the promotion of the highest ideals of justice in the community." Jason continues to make significant contributions to the local bar and community. In addition to serving on the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, he is the creator and Chair of the PBA's Youth Courts Committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Poore, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Poore may be contacted at poorej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    November 23, 2016 —
    Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The third in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that may determine whether you come out a winner.
      Provision: Supervisory Personnel, Employees, and Authority to Bind Provisions
    • Typical Provision: ”At all times during performance of the Work, Subcontractor shall have at the job site a competent supervisor approved by Owner. Subcontractor’s supervisor shall be deemed a representative of Subcontractor and all communications given to Subcontractor’s supervisor shall be as binding as if such communications were given to Subcontractor. Should Contractor object to Subcontractor’s supervisor’s presence at the job site, or the presence at the job site, or the presence at the job site of any other employee or agent of Subcontractor or any employee or agent of Subcontractor of Subcontractor, Subcontractor shall cause such persons to be replaced immediately as directed by Contractor.”
    • What it Means: Higher-tiered parties have a legitimate interest in ensuring that only competent individuals are allowed to perform work on a project and in ensuring that there are peaceable relations at a job site. Higher-tiered parties also have an interest in ensuring that directives and agreements made and reached in the field are followed. However, it is unreasonable for higher-tiered party or to require that such personnel be able to bind that lower-tiered party to agreements best decided by others.
    • What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should seek to include language which provides that only “reasonable” changes to personnel are allowed and, as necessary, limit by category or issue the types of items on-site personnel can bind the lower-tiered party to.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    February 15, 2021 —
    The success of general contractors in completing a construction project is often dependent upon the performance of their subcontractors. General contractors have frequently said exactly this. Traditionally, the key subcontractors on a project are the electrical, plumbing, HVAC and structural steel subs. Due to the fundamental nature of the work performed by these trades, the risk of defaulting and terminating one or more of them is likely to have a substantial impact on the project, more so than with the trade contractors that perform their work after a building is made weather tight (i.e., drywall, tile, painting). Most general contractors have, over a period of years, established longstanding relationships with certain subcontractors that they have come to depend upon. The risk of having to default and terminate one of these subs is minimal. Nevertheless, there will inevitably arise occasions when even a once reliable subcontractor fails to perform and it becomes necessary to invoke the remedies of default and termination. Areas ripe for controversy with subcontractors that often can lead to default and termination often involve disputes over change orders and the scope of work, the installation of defective work and the back-charges that ensue therefrom, and, to a lesser extent, conflicts that arise from ambiguous plans and specifications and the extra work and delays caused by the discovery of unforeseen site conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    November 23, 2020 —
    After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Construction Stitch in Time

    October 28, 2015 —
    It’s a cliche for a reason that “A Stitch in Time Saves Nine.” Why? Because it is almost always cheaper and more efficient in the long run to get something right the first time than to fix it later. This old adage is true in life, and particularly true in the world of construction. Whether it’s measuring twice before making your bid, checking with your subcontractors and suppliers to be sure they haven’t missed anything when giving you a price, or yes (and you knew this was coming), being sure that your contracts are written as they should be and cover the bases. To use another construction related analogy, these types of basic practices create a great foundation for your construction project(s) that will (hopefully) see you through to a successful and profitable construction project. Aside from the last of my examples, how can adding a knowledgeable construction attorney help with laying this foundation? We construction lawyers spend our days either dealing with problems that have occurred (not ideal), anticipating risks that could occur (better, though can lead to a relatively cynical world view), and advising clients before the fact of the potential risks and how to best avoid them (best). Speaking from experience, I would much rather spend my time keeping my construction clients making money and avoiding the pitfalls of the “Murphy’s Law” governed world of construction than spend time with them in court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    May 13, 2014 —
    Following two years in which its big-bank peers paid almost $2 billion to resolve fraud accusations by the Federal Housing Administration, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) has decided it isn’t giving up so easily. Wells Fargo was one of five banks that agreed in 2012 to a nationwide, $25 billion settlement with the Justice Department over mortgage wrongdoing that included botched foreclosures. The FHA then took additional action against four of the banks, including Wells Fargo, for related housing-crisis wrongdoing. Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. decided to settle those matters. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which argued the nationwide settlement should have blocked the new FHA claims against it, chose to fight. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Zajac, Bloomberg
    Mr. Zajac may be contacted at azajac@bloomberg.net

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    June 15, 2020 —
    Those of you in the construction industry know that the two primary statutes of limitation are the 4-year year statute of limitations for patent defects and 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects. Both statutes begin to run on “substantial completion.” In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. D076264 (January 22, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether the term “substantial completion,” as used in Civil Code section 941, which applies to residential construction, can be defined by the parties’ contract and applied to third-parties. The Hensel Phelps Case Hensel Phelps Construction Co. entered into a prime construction contract with the owner and developer of a mixed-use project in San Diego. Hensel Phelps was the general contractor on the project. The project included a residential condominium tower which would eventually be managed and maintained by Smart Corner Owners Association. Smart Corners was not a party to the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around

    November 16, 2020 —
    Our latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay. THE FEDERAL COURTS A Wolf Among the Butterflies On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do. 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