BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut forensic architect
    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


    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    Lawsuit Decries Environmental Assessment for Buffalo, NY, Expressway Cap Project

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/18/24) – Cannabis’ Effect on Real Estate, AI’s Capabilities for Fund Managers and CRE’s Exposure on Large Banks

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    New York Climate Mobilization Act Update: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Funding Solutions

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    Examining Best Practices for Fire Protection of Critical Systems in Buildings

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    Carbon Sequestration Can Combat Global Warming, Sometimes in Unexpected Ways

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

    The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes
    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

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    August 07, 2022 —
    The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently gave another reminder why cyber insurance should be part of any comprehensive insurance portfolio. In Construction Financial Administration Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 19-0020 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022), the court rejected a policyholder’s attempt to find coverage under its professional liability insurance for a social engineering incident that defrauded over $1 million. Construction Financial Administrative Services, which goes by CFAS, disburses funds to contractors. One of its clients, SWF Constructors, was hacked, and a bad actor posing as the client asked CFAS to distribute $600,000 to a sham third party. John Follmer, an executive at CFAS and the only person authorized to approve distribution of funds, approved it. The next day, the bad actor, again posing as the client, asked Follmer to transfer an additional $700,000. Follmer approved that distribution too. Reprinted courtesy of William P. Sowers, Jr., Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- LaTasha Gunnels was outbid four times before she snagged a home in Anacostia, the southeast Washington, D.C. neighborhood that comes with a discount because of its reputation for drugs and crime. The 35-year-old nurse said the area, in a section of the city across a river from Capitol Hill known for its historically high murder rates, is changing rapidly. Buyers like Gunnels, priced out of costlier spots, helped lift values 21 percent in the Anacostia area in 2014, the biggest surge of any D.C. neighborhood, according to data provider Real Estate Business Intelligence. “I’m not going to sugarcoat it -- crime is still there -- but police officers are on every single corner and nobody has bothered me yet,” Gunnels said. “What I’m paying for my mortgage, people are paying for one-bedroom apartments in other parts of D.C.” Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reportersHeather Perlberg, Prashant Gopal, and John Gittelsohn Ms. Perlberg may be contacted at hperlberg@bloomberg.net Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    August 28, 2018 —
    Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    November 01, 2022 —
    Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    June 02, 2016 —
    In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    September 23, 2019 —
    In a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    November 06, 2018 —
    In recent holding, the Florida Supreme Court held that an insurer may not have a duty to defend a contractor in a Florida §558 proceeding. Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes sets forth procedural requirements which must be met before a claimant may file a construction defect action. These requirements include serving a contractor, subcontractor or supplier with written notice of the claim. The contractor, in turn, must serve a written response to the notice of claim in which the contractor provides either an offer to repair the alleged construction defect at no cost to the claimant, resolution of the claim through a monetary payment, a statement disputing the claim, or a statement that any monetary payment will be determined by the recipient’s insurer. The claimant may file suit if the contractor disputes the claim and refuses to remedy the alleged defect or provide monetary compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erik Simpson, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Simpson may be contacted at esimpson@grsm.com

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    September 10, 2014 —
    Most of us have heard that there are problems with Chinese drywall, but do not really know what specifically is wrong with it when it comes to construction in the United States. Let’s begin with a brief overview about why Chinese drywall came to be used in the United States in the first place. Chinese drywall was first imported into the United States beginning in 2001. Most of the homes that have Chinese drywall were built between 2001 and 2008. During the construction boom, Chinese drywall was being imported into the U.S. partly due to the shortage of American-made drywall as a result of several hurricanes that devastated Florida in 2004-2005, and the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of millions of pounds of Chinese drywall were imported into the United States during that time period. While this is only a fraction of the percentage of drywall used in American homes, the problem has been concentrated in certain regions of the country, mostly the South. So what is the problem with Chinese Drywall? To understand it, we must first explore what constitutes drywall. Drywall is a building material made of a gypsum-based sheet of plaster covered with heavy paper on both sides. Drywall is also referred to as plasterboard or sheetrock. Testing of Chinese drywall has found unusually high instances of pyrite. There is speculation that the pyrite oxidation results in sulfur compounds being released by the drywall during periods of high heat and humidity. The combination of high temperatures and humidity is ripe for bringing out problems associated with Chinese drywall. That is why most cases associated with Chinese drywall are found in the Southeastern United States. Reports show that homeowners typically complain of corroding copper in their homes, and a rotten egg odor emanating from copper surfaces that, in turn, turn black and exhibit a powdery ash type substance. Experts opine that this is a result of a reaction of the copper with hydrogen sulfide. Much of wiring or piping found in homes is made of copper. Exposure to Chinese drywall can result in nose bleeds, headaches, coughs, upper respiratory or sinus problems, rashes, and difficulty breathing. There have also been cases reported of pets dying due to exposure to Chinese drywall. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of