BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

    Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Construction Costs Up

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    Be Strategic When Suing a Manufacturer Under a Warranty with an Arbitration Provision

    Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

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

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    NYC Landlord Accused of Skirting Law With Rent-Free Months Offer

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers Superpowers

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Considerations for Optimizing Dispute Resolution Clauses

    Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Is the Manhattan Bank of America Tower a Green Success or Failure?

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Connecticut Reverses Course for Construction Managers on School Projects

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage
    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

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    February 22, 2018 —
    There is a common misconception that all Philadelphia Public Works projects must be performed pursuant to a project labor agreement with various members of the Building and Construction Trades Council. This common misconception is even shared by the current Mayoral administration, who I saw in a recent court filing testified under oath that “project labor agreements are required for all construction projects in Philadelphia with a value of at least five million dollars.” (As is discussed below this is flat out false.) No one has yet to step forward to challenge Philadelphia’s project labor agreement scheme. However, if someone did, I think the challenge would be successful for three reasons. First, contrary to the Mayor’s representative’s statement, there is no requirement that all projects in excess of $5 million be subject to a project labor agreement. Second, Philadelphia’s project labor agreement excludes signatories to collective bargaining agreements with the United Steel Workers (USW) from participating, which violates public bid laws. Third, the exclusion of the USW, also gives rise to a challenge that federal labor law preempts the project labor agreement. A. Background on the Philadelphia PLA. Under a project labor agreement (PLA), a contractor wishing to perform work on a project agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of employment established by the public owner and certain construction unions. Each PLA varies, but typically PLA’s will require a contractor’s employees to become members of a union – if they are already not members – in order to work on a project or will require a contractor to hire labor from a union hiring hall. PLA’s are controversial because they exclude non-union contractors from performing work on a project subject to a PLA, unless of course that contractor agrees to become “union” for purposes of that project. For reasons beyond this blog post, a merit shop contractor would be crazy to do that. The “Philadelphia PLA” that Mayor Kenney believes is required for all public projects over $5 million was instituted by Mayor Nutter through a 2011 Executive Order(Executive Order No. 15-11, Public Works Project Labor Agreements). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    June 26, 2014 —
    The real estate rollercoaster ride for U.S. homeowners isn't new. Some markets had even rockier rides in the early 1980s or '90s. When so much wealth is tied up in one asset, the risk -- or stability -- of a local market can mean a lot to a homeowner. (See “The Hidden Risks in Your Housing Market” for more on this.)

 Bloomberg.com asked real estate website Zillow.com to help us figure out which U.S. markets have been the riskiest over the last 35 years. Our measure of risk: Assuming buyers held on to their homes for five years before selling, what was their chance of suffering a loss? As a secondary criterion, we compared the worst annual losses homeowners in these markets have experienced since 1979. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Steverman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Steverman may be contacted at bsteverman@bloomberg.net

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    November 27, 2013 —
    Thomas F. Segella, Ellen H. Greiper, and Matthew S. Lerner, partners at the firm Goldberg Segalia, together with Suzin L. Raso, an associate of the firm, have prepared a wide-ranging survey of cases, in their commentary, “Emerging Trends and Changing Perspectives on Construction Defect Claims. The authors examine 11 coverage cases, representing decisions from eight states, and 15 cases of litigation, here covering 11 states. In each case, they give a one-sentence summary, a further discussion of the case, and they end with a practice note. They start with Alabama, noting that the court found that “faulty workmanship is not an occurrence,” looking at the recent case of Owners Insurance Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, LLC. Here they note that under Alabama law, “there was no damage to personal property or property of others; therefore, there was no ‘occurrence.’” They also note that “the policy involved did not contain a ‘subcontractor exception.’” In Georgia, they noted, the courts concluded that “damage to insured’s completed work is an ‘occurrence.’” Here they cite a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, noting that the court looked at cases from Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, as well as the Fourth and Tenth Circuits. Under litigation, they look at such aspects of construction defect litigation such as the application of the economic loss doctrine in Kansas and Florida, and how the courts view arbitration agreements in states including New Jersey, Louisiana, and Colorado. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    November 26, 2014 —
    On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit determined that the contractual-liability exclusion did not apply to bar coverage for damage caused by the insured contractor to the home it constructed. Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20727 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2014).The court withdrew its prior opinion, summarized here. Arrow Development, Inc. contracted with the Crownovers to construct a home. The contract had a warranty-to-repair clause, which, in paragraph 23.1, provided that Arrow would "promptly correct work . . . failing to confirm to the requirements of the Contract Documents." After the Crownovers moved in, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation of the home. Additional problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") caused leaking in the exterior lines and air ducts inside the home. To compensate for defects in the HVAC system, the system's mechanical units ran almost continuously in order to heat or cool the home. Because they were overburdened, the mechanical units had to be replaced. The Crownovers paid several hundred thousand dollars to fix the problems with the foundation and HVAC system. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts­ –Effective January 1, 2024

    January 22, 2024 —
    In July 2023, the Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 5186, which mandates inclusion of select antidiscrimination clauses in every state contract and subcontract for public works, goods, or services executed after January 1, 2024.[i] RCW 49.60.530(3) codifies the now-required antidiscrimination clauses, which prohibit four categories of discrimination against any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability (the “Protected Class”). Under the new law, public contractors and subcontractors (“Public Contractor”) may not refuse to hire a person because that person is a member of the Protected Class, unless that refusal is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or if a person with a particular disability would be prevented from properly performing the particular work involved.[ii] Similarly, Public Contractors may not discharge or bar a person from employment or discriminate against any person ­­– either in terms of compensation or other terms and conditions of employment – because that person is a member of the Protected Class.[iii] Last, Public Contractors may not print or circulate (or cause to be printed or circulated) any statement, advertisement, publication, form of application for employment, or make inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to the Protected Class.[iv] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    October 28, 2011 —

    An upstate New York man who was injured when an unsecured truss fell off the railings of a scissor lift has settled for $500,000. As the accident happened at the building site for a casino for the Seneca Nation, attorneys for the construction firm had argued that New York labor laws were inapplicable as the injury happened on Seneca Nation land. The state appeals court ruled that as none of the parties involved were Native Americans, it was not internal to the affairs of the Seneca Nation.

    Read the full story...

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

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    April 10, 2019 —
    For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
    • Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

    Meet the Hipster Real Estate Developers Building for Millennials

    October 02, 2015 —
    John Chaffetz is showing off an apartment building that his development firm, Timberlane Partners, just bought for $7.2 million. He admits it doesn’t look so hot. “This has been treated like a prison camp,” he says of the 32-unit building in Los Angeles’s Echo Park neighborhood. Steel bars stick out of a cinder-block fence, threatening to impale someone. The front door is an ugly metal gate. But an organic supermarket opened around the corner in November, and a Blue Bottle Coffee just arrived down the block. There’s a farmers market nearby each Friday, and five minutes up Sunset Boulevard is the Silver Lake neighborhood, a nest of hipster cafes and places to buy rare cheese and handmade clothes. Timberlane plans to tear down the building’s security fencing, put terracotta back on the roof, and repair windows that date to its pre-1930 construction. “The goal,” Chaffetz says, “is for this to look like a Moroccan boutique hotel.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Steverman, Bloomberg