BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

    Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    NTSB Cites Design Errors in Fatal Bridge Collapse

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    Dispute Review Boards for Real-Time Dispute Avoidance and Resolution

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

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

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Florida trigger

    General Contractors Can Be Sued by a Subcontractor’s Injured Employee

    Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Labor Intensive

    Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    Hudson Tunnel Plan Shows Sign of Life as U.S. Speeds Review
    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

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    October 01, 2024 —
    A federal government contractor in Jackson Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 62 Fed.Cl. 84 (Fed.Cl. 2024) sought delay damages against the government. It lost. The reason for the loss is a crucial reminder that documents parties sign ALWAYS matter. ALWAYS!! In Jackson Construction Co., the contractor’s delay claim was premised on relocating a waterline. The contractor, however, received additional money for relocating the waterline, but no additional time, and this was memorialized in a modification to the contract (i.e., a change order). In executing the modification for the additional work, the contractor did NOT reserve rights for time or money. Indeed, the modification reflected that the monetary adjustment constitutes full compensation for the additional work including delay, namely:
    The contract period of performance remains the same. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of the contractor and his subcontractors and suppliers for all costs and markup directly or indirectly, including extended overhead, attributable to the change order, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the change within the time frame stated.
    Jackson Construction Co., supra, at 90.
    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

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    October 15, 2014 —
    The Silicon Valley Business Journal reported that Taylor Morrison Home Corp has made the “biggest land acquisition so far in San Jose” after acquiring “an 8-acre chunk of dirt in the developing Montecito Vista area where it has plans to build out 184 townhomes.” The developer “paid about $32.5 million, or roughly $176,600 per buildable unit, for the land, according to public tax records,” according to the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Construction is scheduled to begin November of 2015 and models should be ready by April of 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    April 05, 2011 —

    Representative Larry Taylor has introduced a bill in the Texas Legislature (HB 2818) that would further regulate the Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency (TWIA). According to Taylor, “In order to be adequately prepared for future hurricane seasons, it is imperative that TWIA be operating at maximum efficiency, that the Reserve Trust Fund be solvent and that the agency have adequate management measures in place to protect consumers and ensure that claims are paid in a timely manner. House Bill 2818 is an important step in the right direction toward restoring public confidence in TWIA.”

    HB 2818 includes measures that would create an expert panel that would advise the commissioner on how to evaluate loss from the storm, and a greater transparency of TWIA Board meetings and actions.

    In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) has placed TWIA on Administrative Oversight. According to TDI, “While under Administrative Oversight, the Department may require its prior review and approval of executive decisions, certain expenditures, and other transactions. The insurer is required to fully cooperate with the Department and provide complete and timely disclosure of all information responsive to Department requests.”

    Read the full story (Rep. Taylor’s Press Release)...

    Read the full story (Texas Department of Insurance’s Press Release)...

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

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    July 02, 2018 —
    In a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion and Eric C. Sohlgren Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

    December 20, 2021 —
    In November, as one of her first major acts since taking office, New York Governor Kathy Hochul pared back development plans for New York City’s Pennsylvania Station set in place by her predecessor, disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo. The Cuomo plan would have greatly expanded Penn Station and upscaled the neighborhood; Hochul’s vision narrows the scope of work, but it still stands to dramatically transform the subterranean transportation hub, which has been the focus of various unrealized redesign dreams for decades. On Dec. 8, critics and supporters sounded off on the Penn Station scheme in a public hearing. More than 200 people registered to weigh in on how the 10 new skyscrapers coming to the area (shrunk down a bit under Hochul) would affect the scale and character of the community, and the historic buildings that would need to be razed to make way for new development. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    April 27, 2020 —
    Courts often struggle with the question of when the statute of repose starts to run for construction projects that involve multiple buildings or phases. In Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass’n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC, 937 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 2020) (Village Lofts), the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed how Minnesota’s 10-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, applies to claims arising from the construction of a condominium complex. The court held that the statute of repose begins to run at different times for: a) statutory residential warranty claims brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 327A.01 to 327A.08, et. seq.; and b) common law claims arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of the condominium buildings. As stated in Village Lofts, Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC (Housing Partners) developed the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls, a condominium complex consisting of Building A and Building B. Housing Partners retained Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (Kraus-Anderson) as the general contractor for Building A. Kraus-Anderson retained Elness Sweeney Graham Architects, Inc. (ESG), Doody Mechanical, Inc. (Doody) and Kenneth S. Kendle, P.E. (Kendle) to work on Building A. In September 2002, the City of Minneapolis (City) issued a partial certificate of occupancy (CO) for Building A, including the building’s public spaces. On October 4, 2002, Housing Partners filed the declaration creating the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls condominium, to be operated by Village Lofts at St. Anthony Association (Village Lofts Association). On October 10, 2002, Housing Partners sold the first unit in Building A and in November of 2003, the City issued a CO for the entire building, excluding two units. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

    February 06, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the interaction between fraud and contracts on many occasions. Recently, I got to put my advice into action. I am counsel for the plaintiff in the matter of Environmental Staffing Acquisition Corp. v. Beamon, et. al. in the Portsmouth, VA Circuit Court and recently got a great opinion (.pdf) right on point that was recently featured in Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The basic facts are these. My client, Environmental Staffing (En-Staff) filed a Little Miller Act claim and a claim for breach of contract for Beamon’s failure to pay for temporary staffing that En-Staff provided it at the Jeffry Wilson housing project demolition in Portsmouth, VA. Beamon then counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract claiming that some statements to the effect that a particular supervisor was qualified along with presentation of the individual’s resume constituted fraud. My client demurred to the two fraud counts (actual and constructive). 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

    Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

    April 26, 2021 —
    Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and its chill on the hospitality industry, ADA-related digital lawsuits increased by approximately 23% in 2020. Many of these lawsuits are filed against hotels. The complaints allege that a hotel’s online reservation system failed to provide enough detail for individuals with disabilities to decide if the hotel meets their accessibility needs. These plaintiffs will often claim that it is insufficient to describe an aspect of a hotel or room as “accessible” because the term is an opinion or conclusion. Plaintiffs argue that a hotel’s reservation system must report specific information, such as the dimensions of space under accessible desks and sinks, the slopes of surfaces, doorway clearance, and numerous other technical requirements under the ADA. Many hotels are fighting back, arguing that the detail provided is sufficient and in compliance with the ADA. So far this year, in February 2021, two judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson and Judge Cormac Carney, agreed with the defendants, dismissing three cases with prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of Shane Singh, Lewis Brisbois and Grace Mehta, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Singh may be contacted at Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Mehta may be contacted at Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of