BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield 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


    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    Mega-Consulate Ties U.S. to Convicted Billionaire in Nigeria

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Climate Disasters Are an Affordable Housing Problem

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

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

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

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

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    Form Contracts are Great, but. . .

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    July 30, 2014 —
    Relying upon precedent from the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court's denial of coverage based upon the policy's contractual-liability exclusion. Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12158 (5th Cir. June. 27, 2014). The Crownovers entered a construction contract with Arrow Development, Inc. to construct a home. Paragraph 23.1 of the contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause, which provided Arrow "would correct work . . . failing to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents." After the work was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation of the Crownovers' home. Additional problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system caused leaking in exterior lines and air ducts inside the home. When Arrow refused to correct the problems, the Crownovers initiated arbitration. The arbitrator found that the Crownovers had a meritorious claim for breach of the express warranty to repair contained in paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract. Damages were awarded. 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

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    October 21, 2024 —
    The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the insurer's objections on partiality grounds to the insured's appraiser. Biscayne Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Westchester Surpus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19663 (11th Cir. Aug. 6. 2024). Storms damaged buildings at Biscayne Beach Club Condominium. Biscayne Beach filed claims with its insurer, Westchester. Unsatisfied with Westchester's payments, Biscayne Beach sued. Westchester then invoked the appraisal provision in the policy. The district court abated the action so the parties could pursue appraisal. Biscayne Beach appointed Lester Martin, its public adjuster, as its appraiser on a 10 percent contingency fee. Westchester objected because Martinez's retainer created a conflict of interest that would hinder his impartiality. Biscayne Beach then retained Blake Pyka as its appraiser. Westchester appointed its appraiser and and umpire was selected by the parties' two appraisers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    March 06, 2023 —
    I’ve spoken here often about the numbers 90 and 150 as they relate to Virginia mechanic’s liens. These numbers are important for all mechanic’s liens in Virginia, whether commercial or residential (meaning liens for 1 and 2-family homes). There is another number, 30, that is important for those construction contractors that perform work on single and two-family homes. Where a mechanic’s lien agent is named on the building permit (or possibly just named if not stated on the permit), and among other requirements, Va. Code 43-4.01 requires that, in order to have lien rights at the project, the contractor must provide notice to the mechanic’s lien agent within 30 days of beginning work that it is performing work and shall seek payment for the work. Further, the mechanic’s lien agent notice must contain the following:
    (i) the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person sending such notice, (ii) the person’s license or certificate number issued by the Board for Contractors pursuant to Chapter 11 (§ 54.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 54.1, if any, and the date such license or certificate was issued and the date such license or certificate expires, (iii) the building permit number on the building permit, (iv) a description of the property as shown on the building permit, and (v) a statement that the person filing such notice seeks payment for labor performed or material furnished.
    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

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    November 18, 2019 —
    A recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies. DETAILS ON THE MANDATE: More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician. The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid. IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation. Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/01/23) – Mass Timber, IIJA Funding, and Distressed Real Estate

    March 13, 2023 —
    This week’s round-up explores how Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding is being deployed, mass timber is on the rise as decarbonization efforts continue, and commercial real estate remains distressed.
    • With a flurry of high-profile projects, mass timber is gaining traction. (Jeffrey Steele, Commercial Property Executive)
    • Commercial real estate is experiencing high levels of distress, with multiple owners defaulting on loans across the country. (Ted Glanzer, The Real Deal)
    • Even with the recent downturn in cryptocurrency value, the metaverse real estate market is expected to continue to grow. (The Real Deal)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    June 18, 2014 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim because there was a disputed issue of fact regarding the applicability of the vandalism exclusion. Poole v. Untied Servs. Auto. Assn., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2014). The plaintiff rented a residence to tenants. The tenants performed repairs to the residence which resulted in damage in excess of $126,000. The tenants vacated the residence. The plaintiff submitted a claim to USAA for benefits under her homeowners' policy. USAA denied coverage based upon exclusions for damage caused by, among other things, faulty workmanship, renovation and remodeling. Plaintiff sued and USAA moved for summary judgment. 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

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    May 13, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    May 30, 2018 —
    Federal Contractors—especially those engaging in FAR Part 15 direct contract negotiations—should make it a routine practice to timely request debriefings after the Contracting Agency excludes the bidder from the competitive range (“pre-award debriefing”) or after the Agency issues the award (“post-award debriefing”). Debriefings allow the Contractor to understand the evaluation process used by the Contracting Agency and to receive an assessment of how it fared in that evaluation. This is not a one-sided presentation as Contracting Agencies are required to answer the contractor’s relevant questions about the decision-making process. Properly run debriefings can be used to better tailor future bids and negotiations, as further marketing to the Contracting Agency for future awards, and, occasionally, to unearth grounds for a potential protest if any part of the evaluation process is out of sync with the FARs. In the event the contractor learns of a basis for protest at the debriefing, the deadline to file a protest begins running from the date of the debriefing—whether it was required or not. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com