BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Replacement of Gym Floor Due to Sloppy Paint Job is Not Resulting Loss

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule

    The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

    Pulling the Plug

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/10/24) – Strong Construction Investment in Data Centers, Increase Use of Proptech in Hospitality and Effects of Remote-Work on Housing Market

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Condominiums and Homeowners Associations Remain Popular Housing Choices for U-S Homeowners

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding
    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

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    July 18, 2022 —
    Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    December 09, 2011 —

    The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

    After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

    The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

    In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

    Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

    In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops

    March 05, 2015 —
    I don’t know if it’s just me, or if there has been a lot of news lately about technology and construction:
    Although flying in the face of some bad press recently, the use of drones in construction. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.
    Battle of the (tech) Titans, as Google battles it out with the likes of LinkedIn and Microsoft for development rights in Mountain View, California for its futuristic new Googleplex. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.. And Google is only the most recent tech titan with development plans. Facebook’s Frank Gehry-designed campus expansion is in the works and Apple’s “spaceship” campus has already broken ground. We’ve come a long way since the HP garage in Palo Alto, baby!
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    May 24, 2021 —
    The parties in a $238-million dispute over the construction of the third set of locks for the Panama Canal are raising issues concerning alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitrators in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[2] The case may address rarely litigated issues concerning whether arbitrators who sit on multiple arbitration panels together or who support appointment of each other to lead arbitration panels have disabling conflicts of interest. The case pits Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (“Grupo”), a consortium of Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Panamanian construction firms, against Autoridad del Canal de Panama (“ACP”), the Panamanian entity that operates the Panama Canal and that sponsored the multi-billion-dollar, decade-long project to expand the Canal’s capacity by building a new set of locks (the “Project”). The current dispute (the “Panama 1 Arbitration”), which centers on the suitability of the rock coming from the excavations to be used to produce concrete aggregates for the Project, was arbitrated before a three-member ICC Tribunal and resulted in a $238-million award to ACP and against Grupo. The ICC Tribunal reversed a decision of the dispute review board established in the parties’ contract. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP and Philip Z. Langer, Fox Rothschild LLP Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com Mr. Langer may be contacted at planger@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    March 21, 2011 —

    Assemblyman Ira Hansen and twelve additional members of Nevada’s Assembly are sponsoring Assembly Bill 285. AB 285 Revises provisions governing an award of attorney’s fees in causes of action for constructional defects. Existing law generally provides that a claimant may recover reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the claimant’s damages in a cause of action for constructional defects. (NRS 40.655)

    This bill removes this provision and instead authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party involved in such a cause of action if an independent basis for the award exists pursuant to existing law which authorizes a court to award attorney’s fees in certain circumstances, or Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees by an offeree who rejects an offer and subsequently fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.

    In an AP report published in Business Week it is suggested that the target objective of legislators centers on what it refers to as Nevada’s "Rampant construction defect lawsuits".

    According to Business Week "The suits bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers and have put construction companies out of business. Hansen says fewer construction firms mean higher prices for Nevada consumers."

    Click Here To Read Full Text and Revisions of Assembly Bill 285

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    February 06, 2019 —
    The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) recently posted final adopted text for amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The result of over five years of development efforts by the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research and CNRA, the amendments are the most comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines since 1998. In “Natural Resources Agency Finalizes Updates to the CEQA Guidelines,” Pillsbury environmental attorneys Norman F. Carlin, Kevin Ashe and Eric Moorman explore the wide range of issues covered in the amendments, including the new Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) methodology for analyzing transportation impacts; use of regulatory standards as significance thresholds; environmental baselines; and numerous procedural and technical improvements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    December 10, 2015 —
    The Telegraph reported that the developers of famed architect Jean Nouvel’s futuristic building are being sued over alleged window pane defects. The building contains a customized, “curving curtain wall of different sized panes of colorless glass—each set in a unique angle and torque,” according to Nouvel’s firm. However, some residents reported “wind whistling through the panes of glass, and water seeping in.” Furthermore, “[t]he draft is so severe in some places that hydronic heating pipes have frozen and burst, according to court papers.” Attorney for the developer told the Telegraph, “Our clients will be vigorously defending this matter and we believe we will prevail in the case.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 I have been asked this question quite a bit from owners, in particular: “The contractor committed defective work, but it has insurance. Doesn’t the insurance cover this defective work?” Ugh, NO! There is this misconception that liability insurance, specifically, is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to defective work. This could not be further from the truth. Don’t get me wrong – liability insurance is important; it is very, very important. However, liability insurance does not cover the risk of an insured’s defective work. Rather, liability insurance is designed to cover the risk of resulting damage: damage resulting from defective work. This is a significant distinction and one that is often overlooked. This is also why anyone encountering defective work should be working with an attorney to maximize insurance coverage or realize that the issue is not covered by insurance. Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates 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