BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Partner John Van Vlear Named to Board Of Groundwater Resources Association Of California

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    Forget Backyard Pools, Build a Swimming Pond Instead

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

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

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked
    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

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    March 12, 2014 —
    The New York Court of Appeals determined that a two year period for obtaining replacement costs for damage to property was unenforceable where the property could not be reasonably replaced in two years. Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 551251 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2014). Plaintiff's office building was severely damaged in a fire on February 23, 2007. It cost more than a million dollars to restore the building to its previous condition. Plaintiff had $1 million in coverage from Peerless. The policy provided that replacement costs for any loss would be paid after the damaged property was repaired. The insured was required to make the repairs as soon as possible. Further, the policy provided that any legal action against the insurer had to be brought within two years of the loss. Peerless paid the "actual cash value" of the destroyed building pursuant to the policy in the amount of $757,812.50. Peerless informed the plaintiff that it would have to provide documentation of the completion of repairs to collect the full replacement value, another $242,187.50. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    November 02, 2017 —
    California Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Large Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

    November 08, 2021 —
    The push for COVID-19 vaccine mandates is gaining traction in Canada’s construction industry, with governments, large project sites and major employers setting new inoculation deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/17/24) – Housing Inflation to Remain High, Proptech Investment to Fall and Office Vacancy Rates to Reach Peak in 2025

    August 26, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, construction backlog to see positives signs, regional banks to be conservative on buybacks, U.S. metro areas to permit few new housing units, and more!
    • Venture capital investments in proptech and adjacent companies fell 14.3% in the first half of the year. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
    • The expectation of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve later this year due to easing inflation and cooling economic growth is a positive sign for construction backlog. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
    • The U.S. office real estate sector is now in three markets, each with different performance, but the overall office vacancy rate will reach a 21.6% peak in the second half of 2025. (Nish Amarnath, Construction Dive)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    December 20, 2021 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in moving for summary judgment on the insured's claim for loss of business income and civil authority coverage due to losses caused by two hurricanes. Townsley v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202698 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2021). Hurricane Laura struck southeast Louisiana on August 27, 2020 and Hurricane Delta made landfall in the same area on October 9, 2020. Both hurricanes caused property damage and an interruption of business for the insured law firm. Power outages and mandatory evacuation orders caused by both storms created a loss of income for the law firm. Ohio Security denied coverage under the business income, extra expense, and civil authority provisions. The law firm sued and Ohio Security moved for summary judgment. From the undisputed facts, the court could not determine the law firm's entitlement to business income and extra expense coverage, so the motion was denied for these claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    July 16, 2014 —
    The construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.” How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.” Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project. “In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported. During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    March 29, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    December 30, 2015 —
    Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of