BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Changes to Judicial Selection in Mexico Create a New Case for Contractual ADR Provisions

    ¡AI Caramba!

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    How a Maryland County Created the Gold Standard for Building Emissions Reduction

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Deferred Maintenance?

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Ex-San Francisco DPW Director Sentenced to Seven Years in Corruption Case

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So
    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

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    May 30, 2018 —
    An exculpatory provision in a contract is a provision that relieves one party from liability for damages. It shifts the risk of an issue entirely to the other party. Such a provision is generally drafted by the party preparing the contract that is looking to eliminate or disclaim liability associated with a particular risk, oftentimes a risk within their control. These provisions are also known as limitation of liability provisions because they do exactly that — limit liability as to a risk. For this reason, they can be useful provisions based on the context of certain risks, and are provisions that are included in business contracts (such as construction contracts). While such clauses are disfavored, they are enforceable if they are drafted clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally. If they are unclear, ambiguous, or equivocal, they will construed against enforcement. See Obsessions In Time, Inc. v. Jewelry Exchange Venture, LLP, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1033a (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding exculpatory clause in lease ambiguous and, therefore, unenforceable as to lessor looking to benefit from the exculpatory clause). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    March 27, 2023 —
    It seems like we’ve been seeing a lot of Privette doctrine cases recently. Here’s another, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development, 85 Cal.App.5th 516 (2002), which provides a cautionary tale for general contractors to watch what they include in their scope of work and how they manage projects. The Beach House Case Kyle Brown was a carpenter employed by subcontractor O’Rourke Construction, Inc. who contracted with general contractor Beach House Design and Development to provide finish carpentry on a construction project. A&D Plastering Co., another subcontractor on the project, had erected scaffolding on the project. On June 16, 2017, while using A&D’s scaffolding, Brown fell onto a concrete walkway where he suffered severe injuries. Following the accident, Beach House and A&D inspected the scaffolding and found that some of the scaffolding was not properly secured to the building and that planks, crossbars, ties and guardrails had been cut or were missing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    July 14, 2016 —
    Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court announced a dramatic shift in its rules of pleading, adopting the federal courts’ requirement that a claim must be “plausible on its face” to survive a motion to dismiss. Although seemingly subtle, this change transfers much more power to district court judges and weakens the right to a jury in civil actions. For decades in Colorado, courts have held that a plaintiff’s complaint need merely provide a defendant with notice of the transaction that caused an alleged injury. Judges would not dismiss the complaint unless it appeared “beyond doubt” that the plaintiff could prove “no set of facts” which would entitle him or her to relief. See Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 131, 503 P.2d 157, 162 (1972), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). This was rooted in the notion that the civil jury was the ultimate arbiter of disputed facts in American jurisprudence. Every party was entitled to have his or her “day in court” and present claims to a group of jurors selected from the community, rather than a judge appointed by the governor. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    September 17, 2014 —
    Aspen Journalism reported that “[f]our laborers who worked on the Burlingame Phase II affordable housing project financed by the city of Aspen are suing three of the project’s contractors, alleging they weren’t paid for some of their work and were never paid overtime when they worked more than 40 hours per week.” Towards Justice, nonprofit legal services group, filed suit in August on behalf of Fernando Villalobos, Sergio Roman, Ramon Gonzalez and Hugo Esqueda, and against construction companies Haselden Construction, LLC of Centennial, Continental Constructors, LLC of Littleton, and JMS Building of Glenwood Springs. Both sides have agreed that “the men were paid for some, but not all, of their work,” but dispute “the value of the work done by the laborers.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    July 26, 2017 —
    Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner. Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

    How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects

    October 30, 2023 —
    Just like any kind of fire, wildfires are caused by the presence of fuel and a spark. In the case of the 2017 fires in the wine country of California, along with the state's 2018 Camp Fire, the fuel was dry leaf litter, branches and downed trees. And the spark, in some cases, resulted from electric utility lines and, in other cases, due to contractor’s work. More recently, this summer's Maui fires have taken hundreds of lives—deceased and missing—and burned more than 2,500 acres. Lahaina’s historic sites cannot be replaced, and estimates of the rebuild costs are near $5 billion. In Hawaii, the fuel was the same as in California: dried forest debris. It is alleged that the spark was from a powerline downed by extreme winds from Hurricane Dora. While sparks were present, it is the increased volume of fuel that has been the true source of the disastrous recent wildfires. The increased presence of fuel is the result of recent changes in forestry-management practices, coupled with accelerated climatic shifts in recent years toward hotter, drier weather from 2011 to 2020 in California and 2022 to 2023 in Maui, increasing both frequency and severity. Reprinted courtesy of Susan Doering, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    June 18, 2014 —
    CNN Money reported that more homeowners are deciding to keep their homes rather than sell, and become landlords instead. "Clients tell us all the time, 'We're never going to sell our home, even after we buy a new one,'" Glenn Kelman, CEO of the brokerage, Redfin, told CNN Money. “The math works in most landlords' favor these days,” according to CNN Money. “Rents have risen by about 20% nationwide since mid-2006, the housing bubble peak, while home prices are still about 21% below what they were at that time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    June 17, 2015 —
    In Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v St. Catherine of Siena Parish, a U.S. appeals court affirmed "that unexpected and unintended property damage is an ‘occurrence,’” reported Construction Equipment Guide. The underlying case involved roof leaks after the replacement of two Parish roofs, which ultimately led to a trial where Parish was awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages for breach of contract. However, Penn National disputed any obligation to pay, stating that “a breach of contract claim was not an ‘occurrence’ under the policy and even if such claims were an occurrence, the contractual liability and/or ‘your work’ exclusions would bar recovery.” However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ruled “that there was coverage for the property damage caused by the leaks because an ‘accident’ meant an unintended and unforeseen injury and the allegedly faulty workmanship led to damage to other areas of the structure and thus damage beyond simply the cost to replace the defective roof.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of