BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield 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


    2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

    Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/28/25) – FTC Suing Greystar, DOJ Investigating Top Residential Landlords and Trump Facing Housing Conundrum

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Bizarre Case That Required a 117-Year-Old Expert

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

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

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction
    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

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    December 21, 2020 —
    In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use. In D’Allesandro, the action arose out of the construction, marketing, sale and management of the Hewitts Landing Condominium (the Condominium) project. Ultimately, 150 units were constructed over 24 phases of construction, enclosed in 28 different buildings. Throughout construction, the project’s architect submitted declarations to the Town of Hingham swearing that the individual units were “substantially complete” and could be occupied for their intended use. The Town of Hingham then issued certificates of occupancy for the unit or building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark

    August 20, 2014 —
    A century after the U.S. steamship Ancon first sailed through the Panama Canal, a $5.3 billion expansion delayed by bickering contractors and angry workers is nearing completion. The problem is it might not be big enough. With the expansion 16 months behind schedule, canal administrator Jorge Quijano said officials are studying whether to dig a fourth set of locks to handle a growing fleet of super-sized ships. Those include the 400-meter-long “Triple E” vessels capable of carrying more than 18,000 containers, four times more than current ships passing through the canal. “We are always analyzing the market and as soon as we can economically justify it we will begin,” said Manuel Benitez, deputy administrator of the Panama Canal Authority, adding that he thinks the current expansion is sufficient for now. “If that changes and the demand exists we are ready to begin.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael McDonald, Bloomberg
    Mr. McDonald may be contacted at mmcdonald87@bloomberg.net

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    September 10, 2014 —
    Under California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a). What does this mean and who does it include? This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052. There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea. 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

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    September 17, 2015 —
    Microsoft Corp. is considering a multibillion-dollar revamp of its headquarters campus in suburban Seattle, seeking to foster more collaboration among employees and attract young engineers, according to people with knowledge of the plans. The software giant has hired architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP as part of the effort at its Redmond, Washington, offices, said the people, who asked not to be named because the plans aren’t public. Skidmore Owings designed Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and is helping Microsoft with a makeover of its much smaller campus in Mountain View, California. Microsoft hasn’t yet decided whether to move forward with the Redmond overhaul, said one of the people familiar with the matter. Reprinted courtesy of Dina Bass, Bloomberg and Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    February 10, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.

    Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”

    After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.

    During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”

    Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”

    Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”

    Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”

    Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Nationally Ranked as a 2020 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®

    December 22, 2019 —
    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight is pleased to be recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as one of the top construction firms in the United States. The firm received metropolitan Tier 1 rankings in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. In the national rankings, ACS one of just five Washington firms that was ranked for Construction Law (Tier 3) and one of six that received national rankings for Litigation – Construction (Tier 2). Only one other firm in Washington received a Tier 2 national ranking in Construction Litigation. The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in the field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    August 20, 2014 —
    According to Shareholder Karen Holmes and Law Clerk Justin Reid of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes, in Atlas-Allied v. SD Community College District, the California Court of Appeal “confirmed that a civil engineer owes no duty of care to the General Contractor absent privity of contract.” The Appellate court considered Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP to reach that conclusion. Holmes and Reid commented that the Atlas-Allied decision “can assist in clarifying the extent liability is owed when no contract exists. Here, while unpublished, the 4th District clearly refused to extend a duty by the civil engineer to the general contractor on a public works project, giving counsel guidance on the application of Beacon and prior decisions on design professionals’ liability.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    August 27, 2013 —
    The owner of a regional water treatment plant in California has filed a lawsuit against the where they operate. Construction defects lead to cost overruns at the Modesto Irrigation District’s water treatment plant. Now the question is whether MID or Modesto will be paying for the expenses. Both parties sued Black & Veatch and others, receiving $14.9 million. But the problems have lead to the cost of the water treatment plant expansion ballooning to $107.5 million, a big jump over the planned $62.9 million. Also, instead of being completed in 2009, the completion date has been pushed to 2015. Modesto originally agreed to pay for the expansion, which will increase plant’s ability to provide drinking water to 66 million gallons per day with the agreement that MID would provide the water at the cost of producing it. But now the cost to Modesto of those additional 36 million gallons a day is an additional $44.6 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of