BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    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

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight

    Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    A Court-Side Seat: An End-of-Year Environmental Update

    Insurer Must Cover Portions of Arbitration Award

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

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

    From the Ground Up
    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

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    January 24, 2018 —
    The ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied? The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply. Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act. The McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act? To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings. First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.) In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (Id.) Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the McMillin opinion. This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896) and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action? To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded, we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day. All we know for sure from McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of McMillin v. Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    June 06, 2022 —
    A contractor begins work on a project and everything is going well, until one day the owner informs the contractor that it is being terminated for convenience. Possibly, there is no discussion about alleged defects, reasons for the termination, or any damages the owner might seek against the contractor. In that moment, the contractor may be unaware of any perceived wrongdoing or problems with its work. The industry has typically accepted that, in this scenario, the owner implicitly waives the right to any remedies against the contractor, except those expressly set forth in the contract. Reasonable minds might assume that, if the owner believed it needed to seek further remedies, it would terminate the contractor for cause instead of convenience. And often overlooked during contract negotiations are the benefits of including an express “waiver of remedies” in the termination for convenience section. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert C. Shaia, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Shaia may be contacted at rshaia@watttieder.com

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    August 16, 2021 —
    As a General Contractor, you may prefer to arbitrate any contractual disputes rather than engage in protracted litigation. Many Courts favor arbitration clauses and will enforce them if there is a sufficient reason to do so. However, there are several issues that a General Contractor should consider when including an arbitration clause in its construction agreement with its client. When an arbitration clause is not properly crafted, questions can arise as to who must arbitrate? Who decides whether to arbitrate? Who selects the arbitrator? What will the subject matter of the arbitration be? A look at a recent case in Pennsylvania highlights the need for properly crafted arbitration clauses. A Recent Case Highlights The Importance Of Arbitration Clauses In TEC Construction, LLC v. Greg Rich and Lora Rich filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, TEC Construction, LLC (“TEC”) and Greg and Lora Rich (the “Riches”), entered into a Construction Agreement with an arbitration clause. Specifically, the parties to the Construction Agreement, TEC and the Riches, agreed to arbitrate any disputes with the American Arbitration Association. Five subcontractors completed the work under the Construction Agreement but none of the subcontractors agreed to arbitrate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Nolan Deviney, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Deviney may be contacted at sdeviney@foxrothschild.com

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    September 05, 2022 —
    Ever since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim. Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
    • Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
    • Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
    • Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
    • Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Engineer Pauses Fix of 'Sinking' Millennium Tower in San Francisco

    September 13, 2021 —
    Engineers paused work for at least two weeks on the $100-million foundation upgrade for San Francisco's 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower high-rise residential condominium after measurements showed increased settlement during the installation of pile casings for the new piles. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    October 23, 2018 —
    The U.K. government is cracking down on what it called “unfair” leasehold practices as part of sweeping reforms to its housing system, in a move that would modernize the property market to bring it more in line with nations such as the U.S. Initially prompted by a malpractice scandal, the proposed scope of the focus by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has become far broader. A consultation will seek views not only on the practice of charging buyers an annual fee for owning leasehold properties -- known as ground rents -- it will review the whole process of buying, selling and property management of leasehold homes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam, Bloomberg

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    December 09, 2019 —
    The French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    December 30, 2013 —
    The city of Ardmore, Oklahoma is seeing a building boom with the total value of building permits issued by the city in November slightly exceeded $7.5 million, reports Ardmoreite.com. Most of that total comes from residential construction, with the bulk of it coming from just three homes. While Lance Windel Construction plans on building 46 homes, the top value of those homes will be $153,000. The total value for the homes being built by three other firms is more $6.4 million, and those contractors are building just one home each. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of