BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    Intentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an Occurrence

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Norfolk Southern Accused of Trying to Destroy Evidence of Ohio Wreck

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint

    Brazil's Success at Hosting World Cup Bodes Well for Olympics

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Could This Gel Help Tame the California Fires?

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

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

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2023 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    May 11, 2020 —
    As discussed in a prior blog post, in Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., they commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect Statute of Repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs commenced their action prior to the time Florida’s 10-year statute of repose period ended. In overturning the lower court’s dismissal of the action, the court found that because the Right-to-Cure statute, §558 of the Florida Statutes, sets out a series of mandatory steps that must be taken prior to bringing a judicial action, filing pre-suit notice of claim sufficiently constituted an “action” for purposes of Florida’s Statute of Repose. For various reasons, the parties appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Florida. In July of 2019, before the Florida Supreme Court could decide whether to hear the case, the Florida legislature passed legislation that effectively overruled the decision. To overrule the decision, the Florida Legislature modified § 558.004 of Florida’s Right-to-Cure statute to expressly state that a notice of claim served pursuant to the Right-to-Cure statute does not toll the 10-year statute of repose period for construction claims. See Fla. Stat. § 558.004(d). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    May 06, 2019 —
    It’s one of the most quoted phrases in legal history: “Shouting fire in a [crowded] theater.” It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1919 decision in Schenck v. U.S. and has come to stand for the proposition that not all speech, in particular dangerous speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The next case also involves a false alarm. But not of the First Amendment kind. In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B281411 (March 8, 2019), a false alarm investigated by maintenance engineering staff led to a Privette Doctrine claim against a property owner when a ladder on which the maintenance staff was standing slipped on wet flooring. Johnson v. Raytheon Lawrence Johnson worked as a maintenance engineer for ABM Facilities Services, Inc. ABM was hired by Raytheon Company, Inc. to staff the control room at one of Raytheon’s facilities in Southern California. Among other things, control room staff monitored water cooling towers owned by Raytheon to ensure that the water in the cooling towers were maintained at minimum levels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    July 06, 2020 —
    Although the appellate court agreed there was property damage caused by an occurrence, the "your work" exclusion barred the insured contractor's claim. King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Commercial Construction. LLC, 2019 Minn. App. LEXIS 389 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2019). King's Cover Marina sought to expand and remodel its main building. The marina hired Lambert to perform the remodeling project. Lambert hired Roehl Construction, Inc. as a subcontractor to install new concrete footings on the main level of the building and to provide concrete for the second-level mezzanine floor. After completion, the marina sued Lambert for breach of contract and negligence. The marina alleged that the concrete floors on the first and second levels were not constructed in accordance with industry standards or with project plans and specifications, resulting in excessive movement and cracking of the new concrete floors. Lambert tendered its defense to its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company. United Fire defended under a reservation of rights and later sued Lambert for declaratory judgment. 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

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    December 11, 2013 —
    A Canton, Ohio construction company, TAB Construction, has been sued by the federal government over claims that the company lied about its location in order to receive contracts from the U.S. government. According to the suit, TAB received about $13 million for contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The firm had gained the contracts through a Small Business Administration program that allowed firms in certain areas to compete for contracts, however, the firm was not located in the appropriate area. When the SBA found that TAB was not doing business out of an address that qualified for the SBA’s HUBZone program, the company claimed to be working from another address that qualified. Upon investigation, the SBA found this also was not true. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    September 12, 2022 —
    In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion. The Smith case involved a civil action brought by Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith that arose from a 2019 fire at their residence in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. The fire purportedly started in a filter pump, which was operating at the time of the fire, that the plaintiffs purchased in 2002 as part of an aquarium tank kit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    September 25, 2018 —
    California voters will get to vote on November 6, 2018 on a ballot initiative to repeal an infrastructure funding bill signed by Governor Brown this past year that is estimated to raise more than $5 billion annually during the next ten years for road repairs and mass transit improvements in California. In 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased the excise tax on gasoline in the state by 12 cents per gallon, to 30 cents per gallon, and increasing vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175 dollars depending on the value of the vehicle. The last time the state’s gas tax was increased was in 1994 and the last time the federal gas tax was increased was in 1993. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    January 23, 2023 —
    Trace Labs, a WEB 3 developer, joins the EU’s efforts to create a smarter and more sustainable built environment with the BUILDCHAIN project. With its 11 EU partners, Trace Labs aims to improve efficiency, reduce errors, and increase transparency and trust in construction. Efficient, transparent, and trusted data exchange is a powerful tool for driving sustainability, resilience, and energy efficiency in construction. However, there are several obstacles to trusted data exchange in the industry today:
    • Data silos: Construction projects involve multiple parties and stakeholders, each of which may have its systems for storing and sharing information. This can lead to data silos and a lack of coordination, making it difficult to access and trust the data.
    • Lack of standardization: Construction projects may use different formats for storing and sharing data, leading to difficulties in comparing and combining information from various projects.
    • Data security: Construction projects often involve sensitive information, such as building plans, materials lists, and inspection results. Ensuring this information is secure and protected from unauthorized access can be a significant challenge.
    • Lack of incentives: There are often few incentives for construction companies and other stakeholders to share data and collaborate on projects, making establishing trust and transparency challenging.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi