BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    Around the State

    Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    Sanctions Award Against Pro Se Plaintiff Upheld

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    Be Strategic When Suing a Manufacturer Under a Warranty with an Arbitration Provision

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    Insurer Has No Obligation to Cover Arbitration Award in Construction Defect Case

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Project Team Upgrades Va. General Assembly

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Should Not Assert Counterclaims Against the Insured/Subrogor

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case
    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. Drawing 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

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    July 13, 2020 —
    On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    April 06, 2016 —
    The court confirmed that there was no coverage for damage to the policyholder's building caused by a large volume of water. Praetorian Ins. Co. v. Arabia Shrine Ctr. Houston, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20186 (S.D. Texas Feb. 19, 2016). The damage occurred when water began seeping through the baseboards of the Shrine. Employees saw a large amount of water entering the building. Eventually, the city shut off a water main valve. It was later determined that an 8 inch diameter fire suppression metal pipe failed at the elbow, causing over one million gallons of water to be released into the building. Damages were estimated at nearly $1.7 million. Clean up and repair costs amounted to $237,156. 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

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    April 10, 2019 —
    California landlords must follow very specific steps before disposing of property that is clearly abandoned, left on real estate which has been the subject of court proceedings such as eviction or foreclosure, or otherwise left behind. Following the statutory procedures relating to abandoned property protects landlords from potential liability for an improper “conversion.” Former tenants/owners and others “reasonably believed” to be owners of the apparently abandoned personal property must be given proper written notice of the right to reclaim the abandoned property. The tenant is presumed to be the owner of any “records” remaining on the property. The California Code of Civil Procedure provides a template for such notice. The notice to be provided to former tenants/owners must be in “substantially” the same form provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure and must contain the following information:
    1. A description of the abandoned property in a manner reasonably adequate to permit the owner of the property to identify it;
    2. The location where the tenant can claim the property;
    3. The time frame that the tenant has to claim the property. The date specified in the notice shall be a date not less than fifteen (15) days after the notice is personally delivered or, if mailed, not less than eighteen (18) days after the notice is deposited in the mail;
    4. A statement that reasonable storage costs will be charged to the tenant/owner and the tenant/owner must pay those costs before claiming the property; and
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    January 14, 2015 —
    According to the Denver Post, another attempt to change Colorado’s construction defect laws to spur condo development is likely this term. Reform supporters are encouraged by the city of Lakewood’s ordinance, Denver Post reported: “"A patchwork around the state on this issue is not the way to go," Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said. "Hopefully, the Lakewood measure will spur the conversation this year." Lakewood’s “measure gives builders a ‘right to repair’ faulty work before facing legal action and requires that a majority of home owners approve legal action before it is taken.” However, “Nancy Stockton, president of the homeowners association at the Vallagio at Inverness in Arapahoe County, said following Lakewood's example statewide would only make it that much harder to hold builders accountable for the quality of their work.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

    November 13, 2023 —
    In a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential. The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided: Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    July 05, 2021 —
    Answering a certified question, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the insurer could calculate actual cash value (ACV) by including an estimate of the depreciation of embedded labor costs. Butler v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 S. C. LEXIS 51 (S.C. May 12, 2021). Two insureds had their homes damaged in separate fires. Each held homeowners' policies with Travelers. The policies provided replacement cost value coverage to repair or replace damaged portions of homes. In the event that the insures chose not to immediately repair or replace the damaged home, the policies afforded payment to the insured for the actual cash value instead of replacement cost value. Both insured elected not to immediately repair or replace their homes, thereby deciding to accept a cash payment for the ACV of the damaged property. Neither was satisfied with the payment and both filed suit in federal district court. Travelers determined the ACV payment by estimating the replacement cost value (RCV) of the damage and then subtracting depreciation. The certified question presented by the federal district court was whether Travelers could depreciate the labor component of the costs of repair or replacement when determining the ACV. 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

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    May 17, 2021 —
    Pursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory. In 2016, two students at Dartmouth College, Daniel Ro and Sebastian Lim, set up a charcoal grill on a platform outside of a fourth-floor window in the Morton Hall dormitory. The grill started a fire on the platform that ultimately spread to the roof of the dormitory. During fire suppression efforts, all four floors of the dormitory sustained significant water damage. Following the loss, the building’s insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $4,544,313.55 to the Trustees of Dartmouth College for the damages. 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

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    July 16, 2014 —
    David Stevens, chief executive officer of the Mortgage Bankers Association, has spent his career lauding the merits of homeownership. One person still isn’t buying it: his daughter. Sara Stevens, 27, knows interest rates are low, rents are high and owning a home can build wealth. She also had a front-row seat to the worst real-estate slump since the Great Depression. “The world has changed,” she said. Six years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a financial meltdown, some young adults are more risk averse and view the potential upsides of status and wealth more skeptically than before the crisis, altering the homeownership calculation. It’s more than the weight of student loans, an iffy job market and tight credit -- even those who can buy are hesitant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lorraine Woellert, Bloomberg
    Ms. Woellert may be contacted at lwoellert@bloomberg.net