BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    Property Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not Covered

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Design, Legal and Accounting all Fight a War on Billable Hours After the Advent of AI

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

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

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Decaying U.S. Roads Attract Funds From KKR to DoubleLine

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” 2025 Editions

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

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

    Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Sweat the Small Stuff – Don’t Overlook These Three (3) Clauses When Negotiating Your Construction Contract

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    Kiewit Hired as EPC for Fire-Damaged Freeport Gas Terminal Fix

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    February 11, 2013 —
    A judge has scheduled mediation and trial over the claims of Rihanna that her Beverley Hills home suffers from construction defects. The singer claims that the previous owners, Adriana and Heather Rudomin, did not disclose construction defects which lead to flooding from water leaks in January 2010. The Rudomins did not appear at the February 7th hearing, and the judge fined them $500. They will be required to explain their absence on March 12. The mediation will begin on May 7. The trial has been scheduled for February 24, 2014, and is expected to last three weeks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    August 27, 2014 —
    In Martinez v. Aero Caribbean (No. 3:11-cv-03194-WHA, filed 8/21/2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held service of process on a corporation's officer, within the forum state, does not establish general personal jurisdiction over the corporation unless the corporation's contacts with the forum render it essentially at home in the state. Decedent, Lorenzo Corazon Mendoza, was traveling by airplane when the plane crashed, killing everyone aboard. Defendant Avions De Transport Régional (ATR) manufactured the airplane that crashed. Plaintiffs Lorenzo Martinez, Eliezer Martinez, Eliu Mendoza and Gloria Montes (Plaintiffs) filed suit against ATR as heirs of decedent. ATR is a business entity organized under French law with its principal place of business in France. It is not licensed to do business in California, and it has no office or other physical presence there. It has purchased parts from California suppliers, sent representatives to California to promote its business, and advertised in trade publications available in California. It has also sold airplanes to a California corporation. Empire Airlines flies from Santa Barbara to Ontario using ATR planes on a regular basis; however, Empire Airlines purchased the ATR planes secondhand from third parties, and never directly from ATR. At the time of the crash, ATR North America (a wholly owned subsidiary of ATR) had its headquarters in Virginia, and has since relocated to Florida. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    October 01, 2013 —
    The recession hit the Las Vegas area hard, and so residents are now relieved as the economy recovers. During the recession, the area lost more than 70,000 construction jobs. Those who remained still found it hard t find work. But KVVU, Las Vegas, spoke with Fredy Salguero, a construction worker who still finds getting a steady paycheck a challenge. “You work like one, two, three days a week, and before you were able to work six or seven.” The signs are good that better times will be coming for Mr. Salguero. Housing prices are up 30 percent and there are $7 million of commercial projects on the Las Vegas Strip. With the nation’s highest unemployment rate, Nevada needs the help. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    January 06, 2020 —
    Each night, a prancing robotic dog roves the site of Terminal 1 at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), taking photographs of construction on the new terminal, which replaces a 1960s-era building with nearly 900,000 sq ft of state-of-the-art space. The $2.6-billion Harvey Milk terminal is the highlight of a $7.2-billion capital plan. “We are about halfway through,” says Geoff Neumayr, chief development officer for SFO. The program includes a 3,600-space parking garage, a consolidated office campus, a new hotel, a waste treatment plant, improvements to Terminal 2 and the international terminal, and a new on-airport train station. This summer the first nine gates opened at Terminal 1, with nine more slated to open next year and a completion date of 2023 with 25 total gates, including two that will accommodate Airbus A380s double-decker planes. Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    January 28, 2015 —
    It is an all-too-common scenario in California construction: Nine and a half years after completion of a major California construction project, immediately before the 10-year “statute of repose” for suing on “latent” construction defects expires, a lawsuit claiming damages for “recently discovered” latent construction defects is filed. The property owner sues the contractor for the alleged defects. The direct contractor sues all its subcontractors for indemnity and defense. The attorneys spontaneously generate. Experts proliferate. Claimed defects are extrapolated. Four or five years later, after a few dozen attorneys earn a small fortune in fees, the insurance companies make payments. Attorneys collect more fees. The owners take what remains. They repair nothing... and buy vacation homes. Perhaps a cynical view, but there are many in the construction defect world who would reach a similar conclusion. The question is: How can you defeat this seemingly inevitable chain of events? Under a case known as Brisbane Lodging L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. 216 Cal.App 4th 1249 (2013) there may be hope. California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 grant a 10-year “statute of repose” for bringing claims for “latent” construction defects. These statutes allow a lawsuit for such claimed defects to be filed in court up until ten years after the project has been completed. Latent defects are generally defined as those which are “not apparent by reasonable inspection” (CCP §337.15(b)). It is extremely common for such claims to be filed immediately before this 10-year deadline expires. When the lawsuit is brought, the cash register begins to ring. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Porter Law Group

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    January 11, 2022 —
    A federal district court judge in Pensacola, Fla., has ruled that Skanska USA was negligent in preparing the Pensacola Bay Bridge construction site for the approach of Hurricane Sally, a September 2020 event that caused dozens of construction barges to break free of their moorings. The barges severely damaged the partly finished new crossing, closing it for months, and later washed ashore on nearby waterfront properties. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

    November 19, 2021 —
    Update 11.8.21: On Nov. 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the OSHA ETS, stating that the OSHA ETS may have “grave statutory and constitutional issues.” The stay is not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but temporarily halts its implementation nationwide. OSHA has until Nov. 8, 2021 at 5:00 PM to respond and the petitioners have until Nov. 9, 2021 at 5:00 PM to reply to OSHA’s response. The Fifth Circuit will then issue its ruling likely late this week or early next week. On Sept. 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his COVID-19 Action Plan. The Action Plan called on the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to develop a rule requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. On Nov. 4, 2021, OSHA released the rule in the form of an Emergency Temporary Standards (“OSHA ETS”). Here are ten things you need to know about the OSHA ETS:
    • How To Count To 100: (1) The applicable number is the total number of employees employed on November 5, 2021—this is the headcount that will be used for the duration of the OSHA ETS. (2) The count must be done at the employer level not the individual location level. (3) Part-time employees do count towards the total number of employees. (4) Employees who work from home do count towards the total number of employees. (5) Independent contractors do not count towards the total number of employee.
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Fleming, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Fleming may be contacted at lf@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    November 26, 2014 —
    On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com