BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Labor Intensive

    A Place to Study Eternity: Building the Giant Magellan Telescope

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

    Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Insurer's In-House Counsel's Involvement in Coverage Decision Opens Door to Discovery

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis
    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

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    January 05, 2017 —
    One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    May 19, 2014 —
    According to the San Francisco Business Times, “Irvine-based SunCal has now bought the same site twice: once in 2005 for $100.5 million and again last week from the Lehman Brothers estate.” Suncal’s original plan to develop the 167-acre Oakland Hills, California project “fell apart after Lehman declared bankruptcy in 2008.” The San Francisco Business Times reported that the “former naval hospital site” has “the potential for more than 900 homes.” The former design included “960 homes, 82,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, and 50 acres of parks and open space.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    August 06, 2014 —
    Bank of America Corp. is nearing a $16 billion to $17 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department to resolve probes into sales of mortgage-backed bonds in the run-up to the financial crisis, a person familiar with the matter said. Under the proposed terms, the bank would pay about $9 billion in cash and the rest in consumer relief to settle federal and state claims, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the negotiations are private. Details of the proposed accord, such as the relief and a statement of facts, are still being negotiated, the person said. The outlines of the deal were reached last week after a phone call between Attorney General Eric Holder and Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan, the person said. During the July 30 call, Holder said that the government was ready to file a lawsuit in New Jersey if the bank didn’t offer an amount closer to the department’s demand of about $17 billion, according to the person. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Schoenberg, Bloomberg
    Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    February 05, 2014 —
    The broad asbestos exclusion found in a Business Owners policy barred coverage for the insured after it sold a building in which asbestos was discovered. Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 Wisc. LEXIS 747 (Dec. 27, 2013). Prior to purchasing an apartment building, the insured had the building inspected. The report indicated that the building's heating supply ducts likely contained asbestos. The insured then sought to sell the building. The Real Estate Condition Report stated the insured was not aware of "asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on the premises." The buyers purchased the property. A contractor cut through asbestos-wrapped ducts, dispersing asbestos throughout the building. The buyers sued the insured for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions including asbestos. 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

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    November 05, 2014 —
    According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    July 15, 2019 —
    Matthew Loos is an experienced project manager in the civil engineering industry. He works as a project engineer at Jones|Carter in Fort Worth, Texas. In this interview, we discuss Matt’s new book, The Business of Engineering. It is not very common that an engineer writes a non-technical book. What inspired you to do so? Have you ever gotten an idea stuck in your head that you just couldn’t let go of? A time when you couldn’t go to sleep because the idea was consistently begging for your attention? That’s what happened to me. The idea for this book hits me right before bed, as most good ideas do. I couldn’t go to sleep after the idea struck me. I spent half of the night writing the chapters of this book in my mind. I had been thinking about the idea of engineering and how it relates to other career fields, even the non-technical ones. I was disenchanted with the trifling number of classes I took that prepared me for the business world. These were the initial thoughts that eventually led me down the road into thinking about engineering as a profession going forward. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    September 24, 2014 —
    Housing starts slumped in August from the highest level in almost seven years, reflecting a setback in multifamily projects that are at the forefront of the rebound in U.S. real estate. Beginning home construction fell 14.4 percent, the most since April 2013, to a 956,000 annualized rate following July’s revised 1.12 million pace that was the strongest since November 2007, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Work on apartments and condominiums, which tends to be volatile, dropped 31.7 percent after jumping 44.9 percent in July. As more Americans decide that homeownership isn’t for them because wage growth is slow and qualifying for mortgages remains difficult, builders have focused on putting up more rental units, which means the industry will see bigger swings month to month. The average number of multifamily units started over the past 12 months was the most since 2006. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanna Smialek, Bloomberg
    Ms. Smialek may be contacted at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    February 26, 2024 —
    HB24-1014 stands to eliminate the longstanding public impact requirement found within C.R.S. § 6-1-105(2) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). While this proposed change professes the noblest intentions of “public peace, health or safety,” its effect portends a large detriment to Colorado business and an astronomical payday for Colorado plaintiffs’ attorneys. Brief History For over 100 years, Colorado recognized the need to protect its citizens from deceptive trade practices through a mechanism akin to the Federal Trade Commission Act that preceded it. In 1915, Colorado passed legislation prohibiting “untrue, deceptive, or misleading” advertising. C.L. 1921 § 6942 evolved into the broader protections afforded in the more recent consumer protection law from 1969 that prohibited “deceptive trade practices, and included protections from unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts or practices.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Brockel, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Brockel may be contacted at brockel@hhmrlaw.com