BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    The Miller Act Explained

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Federal Regulatory Recap: A Summary of Recent Rulemaking Actions Taken or Proposed Affecting the Energy Industry

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

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

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 7: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

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

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    Rikus Locati Selected to 2024 Northern California Rising Stars!

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    Insurers Dispute Sharing of Defense in Construction Defect Case

    Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    US Proposes Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings
    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

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    September 01, 2011 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.

    Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.

    A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.

    The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”

    The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    September 17, 2014 —
    A deadly pipeline explosion that shattered a California town four years ago continues to rip through the state agency weighing a record penalty for the disaster. The president of the California Public Utilities Commission asked his chief of staff to resign and recused himself from the case after “inappropriate e-mail exchanges” with PG&E Corp. (PCG) raised questions about bias, according to a statement from the commission yesterday. The CPUC may decide within weeks whether to levy a proposed $1.4 billion penalty -- the biggest safety fine in the state’s history -- against PG&E for the 2010 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people in San Bruno. Commission President Michael Peevey, who has been accused by San Bruno officials and consumer advocates of being too close to the utility, said in the statement he would not take part in penalty deliberations to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. The move is a step toward regaining credibility for the CPUC after two years of political infighting has created an ongoing climate of scandal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
    Mr. Chediak may be contacted at mchediak@bloomberg.net

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    September 23, 2024 —
    No contractor wants to be terminated for default. It is the harshest contractual recourse. It is a recourse that has implications, particularly in the public sector. However, a party needs to be in a position to support the basis of the termination for default, and the terminated party, in most instances, should not be in a position to imply accept the basis of the default. This applies regardless of the project. In the federal context: “When a contractor challenges a default termination, the government bears the burden of establishing the validity of the termination.” Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 2024 WL 4048175, *7 (Fed.Cl. 2024) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Once the government establishes the default, “the contractor bears the burden of establishing that the default was excused by fault of the government.” Id. at *8 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Relevant considerations as to whether the contractor is in default include the contractor’s failure to meet contract specifications or the required schedule. Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, supra, at *8. “[T]here is ‘a requirement that the contractor give reasonable assurances of performance in response to a validly issued cure notice.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 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

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    October 28, 2015 —
    According to The Denver Post, the Denver City Council panel advanced a proposed construction defects ordinance proposal 5-0. While “Mayor Michael Hancock and development and business interests…say protections for homeowners have depressed construction” others, such as “homeowner groups[,] have opposed the proposal vocally.” The Denver Post reported that under the ordinance, “a project could not be called defective in a civil action if it was built and maintained in conformance to the building code. Building code violations could be cited in a lawsuit only if they could be linked to actual damage or injury. And it would take the consent of a majority of condo unit owners to initiate a defects lawsuit.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    March 06, 2022 —
    The Texas “eight corners” rule precludes insurers from disclaiming a defense obligation based on facts not alleged in the underlying pleadings. Texas federal and appellate courts have been issuing rulings addressing exceptions to the eight corners rule and recently sought guidance from the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas law recognizes such exceptions to the “eight corners” rule. The Texas Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., 65 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 440 (2022). In Monroe, David Jones contracted with 5D Drilling & Pump Services in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3,600-foot commercial irrigation well on his farmland. In 2016, Jones sued 5D for breach of contract and negligence relating to 5D’s drilling operations on Jones’s property. Jones’s pleading was silent as to when the damage flowing from 5D’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred. BITCO and Monroe stipulated that 5D’s drill struck a bore hole during 5D’s drilling operations in or around November 2014. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    February 23, 2017 —
    Yesterday, February 16, 2017, media outlets reported a nationwide strike by immigrants and businesses referred to as “A Day Without Immigrants”. The protest, organized largely through social media, was a response by some to the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign trade policies. Participating businesses shut down and immigrants refused to work or spend money in an eff ort to demonstrate the role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy. While the number of businesses and individuals that participated is not yet known, several contractors reported labor shortages and construction project delays or temporary shut downs as a result of the protest. Reprinted courtesy of Adam P. Handfinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

    June 06, 2018 —
    rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. 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

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    March 26, 2014 —
    A $9 million construction project in Middleton, Wisconsin has been halted due to an allegation that the construction company, Newcomb, did not comply with the advertised bid requirements and they were not the lowest bidder, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. “Dane County Judge Rhonda Lanford issued a temporary restraining order at the request of Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin asking the city to stop work on the…facility,” the Wisconsin State Journal reported. “We are pleased with the court’s decision. Fairness and transparency in public contracting is critical for the industry,” Robert Barker, Associated’s executive vice president, told the Wisconsin State Journal. “The city must abide by the rules so that all bidders are given a fair shake.” However, the city stated that Newcomb was the construction company with the lowest bid in that category. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of