BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

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

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    Los Angeles Recovery Crews Begin to Mobilize as Wildfires Continue to Burn

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

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

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

    Appraisal Goes Forward Even Though Insurer Has Yet to Determine Coverage on Additional Claims

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Feds to Repair Damage From Halted Border Wall Work in Texas, California

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    ICYMI: Highlights From ABC Convention 2024

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Does the Recording of a Mechanic’s Lien Memorandum by Itself Constitute Process? Read to Find Out

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

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

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration
    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. Drawing 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

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    February 26, 2015 —
    According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval “signed the first major Republican-backed reform bill of the 2015 session, a measure making changes to Nevada’s construction defect law.” Sandoval stated, “During my State of the State address, I challenged the Legislature with passing meaningful construction defect reform. They have met that challenge with the Homeowner Protections Act, which discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada’s rebounding housing market,” as quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The bill, which goes into effect immediately, “restricts the definition of what constitutes a home defect, repeals a provision allowing attorney fees and costs in a home defect judgment, and requires specific descriptions of defects.” It also reduces the statute of limitations from ten years to six years, and prohibits homeowner association boards from filing suits on behalf of homeowners. Not all legislatures were in favor of the measure. For instance, Sen. Aaron Ford “called the measure the ‘homeowner rejection’ act rather than a homeowner protection act at a joint hearing on the bill,” according to the Las Vegas-Review Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    June 19, 2023 —
    Introduction/Overview of the Mechanics Lien Law The California mechanics lien is a powerful tool for contractors, subcontractors and materials suppliers to secure payment of unpaid construction debts. A contractor, subcontractor or materials supplier is allowed to record a mechanics lien on real property, based on the value added to the property by the claimant during the construction process. The recorded mechanics lien provides the claimant with legal right to force the sale of the improved real property and thereby obtain the funds necessary to pay the delinquent debt. Under the usual procedure, the first step is the recording of mechanics lien with County Recorder’s office in the County where the property is located. A lawsuit to foreclose on the lien must then be filed in the County Superior Court of that County, within ninty (90) days after the mechanics lien is recorded. The goal of the lawsuit is to obtain a judgment for foreclosure on the mechanics lien by way of a forced sale of the property. The net proceeds of the sale will be used to pay the unpaid construction debt secured by the recorded mechanics lien, assuming that sale proceeds exceed the amount of senior liens and encumbrances. 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

    Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

    October 04, 2021 —
    It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    May 24, 2021 —
    The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    June 01, 2020 —
    Cyber attackers all know that the majority of organizations are currently working from home due to the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic. And, as would be expected, social engineering scams are on the rise. Nonetheless, there may be limitations in your cyber liability insurance policy for these types of claims. It is advisable to take the initiative to review such insurance policies in detail for coverage considerations prior to the occurrence of any cyber incident. And, of course, protect your business from attacks by engaging in precautious cyber safety efforts. What Is Social Engineering? Social engineering refers to various means to manipulate individuals in the online environment so that they divulge sensitive, personal information, such as banking information, which may include account numbers and passwords. This can also take the form of receiving a request to transfer funds to what the victim believes is another employee, trusted financial information or other party with whom the person has a business relationship with. Unfortunately, however, those funds ultimately are received by the engineer of the cyber attack. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    September 18, 2023 —
    On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii). Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    March 29, 2017 —
    In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

    43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas

    September 03, 2015 —
    RealtyTrac released data that declared that “35.8 million U.S. single family homes and condos with a combined estimated market value of $6.6 trillion are in counties with high or very high natural hazard risk.” Each county was assigned one of five risk catagories for overall risk of natural disaster: Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low. States whose scores fell into the “Very High” category included California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina. “The weather is beautiful in SoCal, but we are statistically more susceptible to the risk of fire, floods and earthquakes than most areas. Our agents must be articulate in explaining the higher risks to buyers. People have to be able trust their agent to fully disclose the risks of natural disasters and homeownership to allow buyers to make the most informed decisions,” Mark Hughes, chief operating officer with First Team Real Estate, covering the Southern California market, told RealtyTrac. “A well-informed knowledgeable buyer is best prepared to take on the potential risks associated with SoCal homeownership.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of