BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expert
    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


    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Housing Affordability Down

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

    North Carolina Should Protect Undocumented Witnesses to Charlotte Scaffolding Deaths, Unions Say

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    Contractor Entitled to Continued Defense Against Allegations of Faulty Construction

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

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019
    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

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    March 13, 2023 —
    California has a number of prompt payment penalty statutes on the books. Among them is Civil Code section 8800 which requires project owners on private works projects to pay progress payments to direct contractors within 30 days after demand for payment pursuant to contract or be subject to prompt payment penalties of two percent (2%) per month on the amount wrongfully withheld. Like California’s other prompt payment penalty statutes, however, there is an important carve out: If there is a good faith dispute between the project owner and the direct contractor the project owner may withhold up to 150% of the dispute amount and not be subject to prompt payment penalties. And that, my friends, is a higher-tiered party’s “get out of jail free” card. In a case of first impression, the 1st District Court of Appeals, in Vought Construction Inc. v. Stock (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 622, examined whether a project owner’s claim for liquidated damages constitutes a good faith dispute under Civil Code section 8800. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Defective Panels Threatening Profit at China Solar Farms: Energy

    January 21, 2015 —
    Flaws found in some Chinese solar panels can drastically eat into their efficiency, reducing how much power the panels will produce as the country races to meet aggressive goals to hold the line on fossil fuel emissions. The defects, found in products set to be used only in China, are in a coating that suppresses reflections on glass, allowing the panels to capture more light. About 23 percent of samples taken from dozens of Chinese companies failed to meet requirements, according to regulators in China. For samples from Jiangsu, the eastern province where much of the glass is made, the rate was as high as 40 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    New Addition to the ASCE/SEI 7-22 Standard Protects Buildings from a 500-year Flood Event

    June 05, 2023 —
    Reston, VA — The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released a new update to their most widely used standard today, ASCE/SEI 7-22 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Building and Other Structures. As the increasing frequency of severe storms puts strain on communities across the globe, the design standard's new flood load provisions will protect against 500-year flood events, which is a significant improvement to the 100-year flood hazard referenced in the previous version. The update — which is available in a supplement as a free download — is a significant revision of the design provisions in Chapter 5 to strengthen building resilience against the flood hazard. The ASCE 7 national loading standard is an integral part of building codes in the United States and around the globe. "For more than 30 years, the ASCE 7 standard has been the authoritative source for the specification of minimum design loads and related criteria in the civil engineering community," said Tom Smith, ASCE Executive Director. "To ensure structures continue to be safe for the public, it is imperative that the standards we rely on are updated to account for emerging risks to the built environment. This Supplement is the most significant change to the standard's flood load provisions since the inception of ASCE 7 and will improve the safety and reliability of structures across the globe." ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    May 10, 2012 —

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.

    The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.

    The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.

    In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.

    The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.

    A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”

    Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    December 02, 2015 —
    The Nevada Supreme Court, responding to certified questions, determined that an insurer must provide independent counsel for its insured when a conflict of interest arises between the insurer and insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 86 (Nev. Sept. 24, 2015). The insured struck the vehicle of another driver, Hansen. Hansen sued the insured alleging both negligence and various intentional torts. State Farm agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights letter reserved the right to deny coverage for liabiltiy resulting from intentional acts and punitive damages. 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

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    January 22, 2014 —
    The city School Construction Authority (SCA) in Staten Island, New York, wants Ennead Architects to pay them $1.4 million to repair the playground at the Jerome Parker Educational Complex, according to Silive.com. Ennead Architects, based out of Manhattan, designed the William J. Clinton Presidential Center, and is currently working on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center in Washington, D. C. In the suit, as reported by Silive.com, SCA alleges, “the pavement has progressively cracked, buckled, become uneven and created pools of standing water, all presenting a safety hazard.” Silive.com stated that “an Ennead spokeswoman did not immediately return a telephone call” when asked to comment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    June 02, 2016 —
    In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com