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


    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    Netflix Plans $900M Facility At Former New Jersey Army Base

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Jury Convicts Ciminelli, State Official in Bid-Rig Case

    Automating Your Home? There’s an App for That

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Understanding the Limits of Privilege When Applied to Witness Prep Sessions

    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    “Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

    Enhanced Geothermal Energy Could Be the Next Zero-Carbon Hero
    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

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

    January 21, 2015 —
    Zinc rose for a second day and copper held gains before data showing increased housing construction in the U.S. and a stimulus decision by the European Central Bank. Zinc advanced as much as 0.8 percent. Housing starts in the U.S., the second-largest metals consumer, climbed 1.2 percent in December from the previous month, according to a Bloomberg survey, after falling 1.6 percent in November. The ECB will announce a 550 billion-euro ($636 billion) government-bond purchase program this week, according to 93 percent of respondents in a separate survey. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex Davis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Davis may be contacted at adavis150@bloomberg.net

    Construction Jobs Keep Rising, with April Gain of 33,000

    June 10, 2019 —
    The construction employment picture continues to brighten, as the industry gained 33,000 jobs in April and its jobless rate improved, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    December 17, 2015 —
    Parents, rejoice. Your offspring may finally be moving out of the family basement. A new report (PDF) from Fannie Mae, the U.S. government-backed mortgage company, suggests that the millennial generation is getting a move on. "According to the ACS [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey], the number of homeowners aged 25-34 fell by more than 250,000 in each year between 2007 and 2012, but has declined by less than 100,000 annually since then," Fannie Mae said. "In fact, the decline between 2013 and 2014 was statistically insignificant, the first indication of stability in the number of young homeowners since the onset of the Great Recession." So while the number of homeowners in that age range is still on the decline, the trend looks poised for a reversal, and Fannie Mae said it won't take much to see positive growth in millennial homeownership in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Julie Verhage, Bloomberg

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    May 10, 2012 —

    The case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”

    The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”

    In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

    The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”

    Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”

    The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”

    In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    November 02, 2017 —
    Tales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:
    • It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
    • It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
    • It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
    • All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
    • The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
    • At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    August 06, 2019 —
    The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    March 31, 2014 —
    Darin J. McMullen of the firm Anderson Kill explained how a recent opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows “Pennsylvania policyholders” to “more confidently challenge insurance companies’ denials of faulty workmanship claims.” The decision in Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) “reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies,” according to McMullen. “Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    August 10, 2021 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. 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