BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    Construction and AI: What Contractors Need to Know from ABC’s New Report

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    How to Get Your Bedroom Into the Met Museum

    Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion Modernization

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    Don't Count On a Housing Slowdown to Improve Affordability

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    July 05, 2023 —
    A recent case out of the Northern District of Florida dealing with a federal project provides an interesting discussion about a sub-subcontractor asserting a claim against the prime contractor for unjust enrichment. The prime contractor argued any benefit to it was indirect which does not support an unjust enrichment claim as the actual direct benefit flowed to the owner of the project – the government. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the sub-subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against the prime contractor because an indirect benefit does NOT support an equitable unjust enrichment claim. See U.S.A f/u/b/o Eco Universe Contracting, LLC v. Calvary Construction Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3884642 (N.D.Fla. 2023). 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

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

    January 13, 2020 —
    In July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract. The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret. The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech. The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding. In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement. Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit. The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms. Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    January 10, 2018 —

    While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

    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


    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    June 02, 2016 —
    I just toured the newly built headquarters of a financial corporation. Our guide, a M&A specialist, boasted that they have completely removed paper from their offices. Could paperless construction become feasible any time soon? PaperLight is a portable smart board that could replace paper drawings on many occasions. Rollout, Inc., the developer of PaperLight, says that 90% of contractors still use paper plans. AEC firms spend, on average, $1600 per employee on printing annually. Over 37 million construction drawings are printed every year. Finding a usable solution that reduces these numbers makes economic sense. Even more so if you consider all the costs of errors that result from using outdated paper drawings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    May 11, 2020 —
    KLAMATH, Calif. (AP) — The second-largest river in California has sustained Native American tribes with plentiful salmon for millennia, provided upstream farmers with irrigation water for generations and served as a haven for retirees who built dream homes along its banks. With so many competing demands, the Klamath River has come to symbolize a larger struggle over the increasingly precious water resources of the U.S. West, and who has the biggest claim to them. Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    August 04, 2015 —
    It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    August 14, 2018 —
    Commercial general liability (CGL) policies for contractors traditionally contain a professional liabilities exclusion. This exclusion is generally added through a specific endorsement to eliminate coverage for professional services. Read the endorsement The point of the exclusion, in a nutshell, is simply to eliminate a CGL policy for a contractor serving as a professional liability policy. Contractors need to appreciate a professional liabilities exclusion added through endorsement because oftentimes there are delegated design components they are responsible for. Perhaps the contractor value engineered a system and is responsible for engineering and signing and sealing the engineered documents (through its subcontractor) associated with that system. Perhaps there is a performance specification that requires the contractor to engineer a system. Perhaps there is a design-build component. Regardless of the circumstance, this professional liabilities exclusion can certainly come into play, particularly if a defect is raised with the design or professional services associated with the engineered system. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    June 09, 2016 —
    Welcome summer days! Today we have a guest post by Todd Bryant, president and founder of Bryant Surety Bonds. He is a surety bonds expert with years of experience in helping contractors get bonded and start their business. While design professionals generally don’t have to deal with performance bonds directly, they are often at the front lines of advising owners as to various Requests for Proposals submitted by hopeful contractors. In that spirit, be sure to read how the new law changes security requirements. Take it away, Todd! Last year wrapped up with some good news for North Carolina subdivision developers: House Bill 721 confirmed that construction bonds are, in fact, a viable form of performance guarantee. Previous legislation was ambiguous on this point, but the new bill– which took effect last October– sought to clear up the confusion. Although the new rules have been in effect for eight months, there’s been scant coverage of the changes, and what they mean for developers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com