BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    ‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

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

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Missouri Asbestos Litigation Reform: New Bill Seeks to Establish Robust Disclosure Obligations

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Shares Fall on Wind-Down Measure

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    #1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

    House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

    Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage
    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

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    February 21, 2013 —
    Construction defect claims can be an avoidable headache, if builders apply some forethought. Mark J. Peschel of Johnson & Lindberg, a Bloomington, Minnesota law firm, points out that simply says that windows should be weatherproofed by appropriate flashing, without any guidance on accomplishing that. He notes that “builders tend not to know the weatherproofing code provisions as well as they should.” Another lawyer, Eric S. Hayes of Brown and Carlson in St. Louis Park extends this, “it’s not just the building codes that need to be followed, but also the standards in the industry.” Hayes notes that another way builders can avoid headaches is by being proactive. “I often hear, once things have gone sour and moved toward litigation, that the homeowner contacted the contractor a dozen times about a leaking basement and nothing was done, so they were forced to sue.” His advice for builders: “Don’t let it fester.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    June 21, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that developers can retain control over community covenants in perpetuity by recording a covenant that requires declarant consent to any amendments. Although the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) states that such controls should be void, the court nevertheless ruled that a declarant may veto amendments that alter the dispute resolution procedures for construction defect actions at any time. The case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 15CO508, arose when the community’s members discovered widespread construction defects. When the declarant developed the project, it had recorded a declaration of covenants that purported to waive the homeowners’ right to a jury trial and instead require that any construction defect disputes be resolved by a private arbitration panel. The declaration also prohibited the homeowners from recovering attorney fees and costs, and it limited the declarant’s liability for damages. Consistent with CCIOA, the declaration allowed the homeowners to amend their covenants by a 67% vote, but it recited that the declarant could veto any such amendment prior to the sale of the last unit to a homeowner. The covenants further stated that the declarant must consent to any amendment that altered the construction defect restrictions. 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

    3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

    July 16, 2023 —
    3M Co. has offically moved to settle claims of fouled drinking water stemming from the use of so-called “forever chemicals,” striking a deal with U.S. public water systems that could total $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion over 13 years, it said in a June 22 federal filing. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and 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

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    February 21, 2013 —
    In a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.” This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
    mann@hlmrlaw.com

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    Previously denying consolidation of all COVID-19 business interruption claims [post here], the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation allowed consolidation of one group of cases against Society Insurance Company while denying consolidation of four other groups of cases. In re Soc'y Ins. Co. COVID-19 Bus. Interruption Protection Ins. Litigation, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183678 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 2, 2020). Claims against Society encompassed 34 actions filed in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. The court found that centralization of the Society actions would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions shared common factual allegations that Society wrongfully denied policy holders' claims for business interruption coverage. Plaintiffs contended that Society preemptively decided to deny their 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

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Stephens & Stephens XII v. Fireman's Fund Ins. (No. A135938, filed November 24, 2014), the plaintiffs obtained property insurance on a warehouse. Within a month, it was discovered to be stripped of all wiring and metal. Fireman's Fund paid for emergency repairs but nothing more, concerned that the damage had occurred outside the policy period. The policy provided for valuation of either "replacement cost," meaning the expenditure required to replace the damaged property with "new property of comparable material and quality," or "actual cash value," defined as the actual, depreciated value of the damaged property. For replacement cost, Fireman’s Fund was not required to pay "until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired ... as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage," and only "[t]he amount [the insured] actually spend[s]...." In the subsequent bad faith lawsuit, the jury awarded the full cost of repair, despite there being no repairs. The appeals court reversed, holding that there was no right to an immediate award for the costs of repairing the damage; however, the court nonetheless held that the insured was entitled to a "conditional judgment," awarding those costs if repairs were actually made. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Are We Having Fun Yet? Construction In a Post-COVID World (Law Note)

    June 20, 2022 —
    Remember how I said to never assume? Yeah, about that…… even when you plan for failures, mistakes, and other problems, sometimes things get so outside the realm of what you considered that it can leave your construction project spinning. Take, as a random example, a world-wide pandemic that shuts down supply chains, shuts down job sites, and limits the labor pool. Just as an example. What does construction law say about pandemics? They fall under an “Act of God” that you may have read about in your contracts, or in the contracts of the contractors working your projects. An “Act of God” is an event that is not foreseeable, and as such not something the parties could have anticipated when they drafted the contract. Acts of God generally excuse a party’s failure– for example, a contractor’s failure to complete the project on time can be excused when an “act of God” has occurred. By now, you’ve dealt with the practical fall out, one way or another. Many projects no longer made financial sense for your clients. Others may have been modified, reduced in scope, or had substitute materials put in place. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions, Four Attorneys Promoted to Partner and One Attorney Promoted to Counsel

    January 23, 2023 —
    PHILADELPHIA -- White and Williams LLP is very pleased to announce the promotion of the following attorneys: Michael J. Ciamaichelo, Russell P. Lieberman, Tanya A. Salgado and Brett N. Tishler, who have become members of the firm’s partnership. All four attorneys are promoted from counsel to partner. The firm has also promoted Zachery B. Roth from associate to counsel. The partnership concluded in elevating these attorneys that each have made significant contributions to the firm and their respective practices. “All of our new partners and counsel enrich the firm both internally and externally. They have a demonstrated, deep commitment to client service excellence and through their dedication, personal sacrifice and leadership warranted elevation to partnership and counsel at White and Williams,” said firm Managing Partner Andy Susko. “We are proud to welcome these four lawyers to our partnership and look forward to their continued contributions to the firm’s success.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP