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


    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

    Florida trigger

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Netflix Plans $900M Facility At Former New Jersey Army Base

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

    Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims
    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

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    December 08, 2016 —
    The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) has reached an agreement with Kiewit Corp. and will pay the contractor $297.8 million for project change orders on the Interstate 405-Sepulveda Pass Widening Project, in Los Angeles. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    August 20, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Yeager Painting, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130316 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama had occasion to consider an insured’s reporting obligations under a general liability policy. Evanston’s insured, Yeager, was hired to sandblast water tanks, and in turn, subcontracted out the work to a third party. On May 19, 2012, an employee of the subcontractor was severely injured in connection with a work-site accident. It is not entirely clear when Yeager provided notice of occurrence to Evanston, although Evanston advised by letter dated January 30, 2013 that it would be further investigating the matter subject to a reservation of rights. Evanston subsequently denied coverage by letter dated April 10, 2013, the disclaimer based on a subcontractor exclusion on the policy. Notably, Evanston’s letter advised that Yeager should immediately contact Evanston if any facts changed or if it had any additional information concerning the matter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    February 07, 2013 —
    The City Bella on Lyndale homeowners association settled with the high rise's developer and builder for $1.9 million over construction defects. The defects included structural deterioration in the project's pool area, extensive air and water leaks in the windows, and structural problems in the project's underground parking garage. City Bella consists of a 15-story tower and a four-story building on Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis. They settled the lawsuit in 2011, but the homeowners association is still looking to the insurers to pay up. With legal fees and interest, the total rises to $2.82 million that Travelers could be paying the association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    March 27, 2019 —
    I’ve often wondered just where the term “punch list” came from, and I’ve found a few sources that seem to make sense, while others not so much. One person claims it came from the telephone installer process of “punching down” terminals on a block. That seems a bit of a stretch though. A blog writer said it had to do with the term ‘punch’ since it means to “punch something up” as in fix it. Another blog writer thought it had something to do with a long forgotten practice. Apparently subcontractors used to each have their own hole punches that would punch a hole with a shape unique to them. They would use these punches to indicate they had corrected the deficiency that was their responsibility. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    July 25, 2022 —
    Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. 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

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    June 22, 2016 —
    In Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.,[1] Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt to circumvent Florida’s well-established four-year statute of limitations for all actions founded on the construction of an improvement to real property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract as a result of water intrusion damage following the installation of windows.[2] It was undisputed that Plaintiff commenced the litigation more than four years following the discovery of the allegedly latent defect in the window installation.[3] Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the window contractor could not rely on the four-year statute of limitations because the window subcontractor was not a licensed contractor and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitations for actions founded on written contracts should apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Clay Whittaker, Cole, Scott, & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Whittaker may be contacted at clay.whittaker@csklegal.com

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    May 25, 2020 —
    As a reader of Construction Law Musings, you no doubt realize that I am a big proponent of “green” or sustainable building. I have also been known to sound a bit like Eeyore when discussing the charge into the breach of green building without considering the potential risks. Thankfully, and despite some of the risk predictions made here (and elsewhere for that matter) there have not been but so many major court cases relating to these risks. However, as a recent article in ENR Magazine warns, this lack of litigation does not mean that you should let your guard down. Just because the economy, warnings by attorneys and others, and possible lack of financial incentive to sue have kept the litigation numbers down does not mean that the risks have gone away. LEED requirements, time horizons and other risks that have become evident during the process of vetting green building contracts and practices still must be dealt with in contracts and insurance policies. These risks are well laid out in the ENR article and in other places here at Musings so I won’t outline them in detail here. 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

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    March 29, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] 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