BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut building code compliance 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


    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

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

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

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Canada to Ban Foreigners From Buying Homes as Prices Soar

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    City of Seattle Temporarily Shuts Down Public Works to Enforce Health and Safety Plans

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/31/24) – International Homebuying Shrinks Commercial Real Estate Focus on Sustainability, and U.S. Banks Boost Provisions for Credit Losses

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

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

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Just a House That Uses 90 Percent Less Energy Than Yours, That's All

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    Urban Retrofits, Tall Buildings, and Sustainability

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

    Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract
    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

    Ex-Construction Firm That Bought a $75m Michelangelo to Delist

    January 08, 2019 —
    A Chinese construction firm-turned-art-collector will be delisted from the Nasdaq effective Friday, following a 260 percent run-up in its stock price this fall. Shares in Yulong Eco-Materials Ltd. soared after the company agreed to buy the “Millennium Sapphire” for $50 million in October and a “Crucifixion” painting for $75 million in November. The firm was formerly a “vertically integrated manufacturer of eco-friendly building products located in the city of Pingdingshan in Henan Province, China," according to a company filing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Drew Singer, Bloomberg

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    February 07, 2018 —
    As of January 1, 2018, direct contractors in California who make or take a contract “for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” are jointly and severally liable with their subcontractors for any unpaid wages, fringe benefits and other benefit payments or contributions owed to wage claimants. Governor Brown approved AB 1701 on October 14, 2017. The new law puts the onus on direct contractors to not only monitor their own payroll practices, but to ensure that their subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors are engaging in proper payroll practices. Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Nora Stilestein, Candace Matson and Mercedes Cook Ms. Stilestein may be contacted at nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Cook may be contacted at mcook@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

    May 15, 2023 —
    In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    August 26, 2024 —
    California’s wildfires are weighing on home prices more than in the past, and insurance availability does little to help in areas considered to be at higher risk, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study. “Our results suggest that property values have been more adversely impacted in recent years by being close to past wildfires than was the case previously,” economists Leila Bengali, Fernanda Nechio and Stephanie Stewart wrote in a paper published Monday on the Fed bank’s website. While the effect of the proximity may be relatively small now, the economists warned “this pattern may become stronger in years to come if residential construction continues to expand into areas with higher fire risk and if trends in wildfire severity continue,” the study cautioned. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Curtis, Bloomberg

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    October 02, 2015 —
    In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    April 27, 2020 —
    This case concerns calculation of a damages award to a general contractor, Skanska USA Building, Inc., on its claim for breach of contract against its masonry subcontractor, J.D. Long Masonry, Inc., arising from Long’s faulty construction of a masonry façade at a medical research facility in Baltimore. When the façade collapsed and Long failed to repair it, Skanska hired a replacement subcontractor, C.A. Lindman, to remediate Long’s defective work and filed suit against Long to recover the resulting damages. After the court granted Skanska’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, Skanska moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, relying on the indemnification provision of the subcontract to seek compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and litigation fees. In the subcontract, Long agreed to indemnify and hold Skanska harmless from all claims, losses, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising before or after completion of Long’s work, caused by, arising out of, resulting from, or occurring in connection with Long’s performance of the work or breach of the subcontract. The court first applied the terms of this provision to award Skanska compensatory damages, holding that Skanska was, as a matter of law, entitled to recover the amount of the Lindman subcontract and general conditions incurred to supervise remediation of Long’s work. The court, however, denied Skanska’s claim for pre-judgment interest on the entirety of these damages. Skanska asserted that it was entitled to pre-judgment interest on the full award, calculated from the date on which it first paid Lindman. The court disagreed, explaining that, under Maryland law, a claimant is entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest as of right only when the amount due is certain, definite and liquidated by a specific date prior to judgment. The court reasoned that, because much of the Lindman subcontract value was composed of later-executed change orders, an award of pre-judgment interest could not be uniformly calculated back to the date of Skanska’s first payment to Lindman. And moreover, because Skanska continued to withhold sums due to Lindman pending resolution of certain issues, awarding Skanska pre-judgment interest on amounts it had not yet paid would result in a “windfall” to Skanska because there was no “use of income” loss to be compensated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John J. Gazzola, Pepper Hamilton LLP
    Mr. Gazzola may be contacted at gazzolaj@pepperlaw.com

    Domingo Tan Receives Prestigious Ollie Award: Excellence in Construction Defect Community

    May 28, 2024 —
    (Anaheim, CA.) - Wood Smith Henning & Berman is thrilled to announce that Domingo Tan, a partner in the Los Angeles office, has been awarded the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence. Fondly known as the "Ollie", this esteemed accolade is presented annually to a standout professional in the construction defect community who has demonstrated exceptional contributions and unwavering dedication to the field. The exciting announcement of Tan's victory took place during the 30th Anniversary of the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar in Anaheim. Widely recognized as the nation's largest conference for professionals handling construction defect matters, the event drew a remarkable gathering of general counsel, risk managers, claim professionals, and attorneys who actively participated in the nomination and voting process. The Ollie award pays tribute to the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a highly respected legal professional renowned for his groundbreaking work in alternate dispute resolution methods for construction defect disputes. It celebrates individuals who embody the values of loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning & Berman

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    August 27, 2014 —
    Residents of the Packard Condominiums in Indianapolis, Indiana “have settled a two-year-old lawsuit with developer Kosene & Kosene Residential,” according to the Indianapolis Business Journal. The Homeowners association stated that “the agreement would lead to repayment of a construction loan and avoidance of a special assessment on residents.” The association claimed to have spent “$3 million on ‘renovation and remediation’ of subpar construction of the condo building,” reported the Indianapolis Business Journal. The article also declared that at least 25 subcontractors participated in the mediation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of