BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

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

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Following My Own Advice

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Trump Administration Announces New Eviction Moratorium

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy
    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

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    May 03, 2011 —

    North Carolina may become the twelfth state to require a Certificate of Merit to sue an architect or engineer. If North Carolina Senate Bill 435 (SB435) passes, then plaintiffs when filing a complaint will need to also attach an affidavit of a third-party licensed professional engineer or architect stating that the case has merit.

    SB435 is a short two pages in its current form. The bill states that the “third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall (i) be competent to testify and hold the same professional license and practice in the same area of practice as the defendant design professional and (ii) offer testimony based upon knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice. The affidavit shall specifically state for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the design professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall be licensed in this State and actively engaged in the practice of engineering or architecture respectively.”

    A few of the amendments allude to disciplining design professionals who certify civil actions that are without merit. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary I.

    While North Carolina is considering enacting a Certificate of Merit law, eleven other states already require one, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Christopher D. Montez, a partner with Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP, has written a useful summary for each state’s certificate of merit scheme.

    Read the text of SB435

    Track the progress of SB435

    Read more from Christopher D. Montez’s article on Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP site

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

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    October 28, 2011 —

    The city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”

    Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.

    Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.

    Read the full story...

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

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    September 03, 2015 —
    Construction of the new $1.1 billion home of Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves is about three months ahead of schedule, according to team executives. “We’ve built a really solid, aggressive, efficient plan,” Mike Plant, head of the team’s business operations, said in an interview Thursday during a brick-laying ceremony. “No one has ever built a ballpark of this scale and scope in 39 months, and we’re going to do it in 36.” The 41,500-seat stadium, 14 miles northwest of Turner Field and known as SunTrust Park, will be about 20 percent smaller than the existing ballpark and could be completed by mid-November 2016, Plant and Braves Chairman Terry McGuirk said. The complex will include a 250-room Omni hotel, a nine-story corporate office for Comcast Corp. and the Roxy Theatre, a 4,000-seat music venue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Buteau, Bloomberg

    Construction Termination Issues for the Architect and Engineer: Part 1– Introduction to the Series

    July 24, 2023 —
    Earlier this year, I was asked to talk to other construction lawyers on the topic of termination. My first question was– whose termination are we talking about here– the architect / engineer? The contractor? Is someone wanting to “fire” the owner? The answer, as it turns out, is — yes. That is, yes, any and all of the above termination topics were on the table. As you may have suspected, even the threat of a termination is bad, bad news. It is the “nuclear option” for a construction project. Everyone risks getting harmed. As the design professional administering a contract, you run a risk of being dragged into litigation no matter what you do. So, how should you proceed? Carefully. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    March 31, 2014 —
    In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    December 02, 2015 —
    Tort law is aimed at providing compensation to the victims of negligence. Tort law encourages plaintiffs to cast a wide net, pursuing claims or suits against not only those whose fault seems manifestly primary, but also against defendants whose causal exposure is minimal, against those whose exposure is purely by operation of law. As discussed in the first installment of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity: Problems with Common Law," three common law principles – vicarious liability, joint and several liability, and common law indemnity – cause some parties to pay in excess of their actual degree of causal fault. Contractual indemnity can remedy that harsh result. Part Two: Components of an Effective Provision Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of financial consequences from tort exposure, including civil damages, defense fees, expert fees, and litigation expenses. Such contracts permit indemnity even where the underlying damage was incurred due to a degree of negligence or fault on the part of the Indemnitee. Such contracts can also allow an Indemnitee to shift to the Indemnitor the risk of loss for someone from whom the Indemnitor would otherwise be immune from suit (e.g., the Indemnitor’s employees). A well-written contract can even convert an entity which is an Indemnitor as to one party (e.g., a general contractor which has to indemnify a property owner) into an Indemnitee as to another party (e.g., a subcontractor) for the very same risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    November 05, 2014 —
    Amos Saunders, retired Passaic County, New Jersey, Superior Court judge claimed "he got cancer as a result of coming into contact with asbestos at the courthouse during his time on the bench," the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Saunders alleged "that he was exposed to asbestos throughout his tenure, up to and including an asbestos removal project at the Paterson, N.J., courthouse in the 1980s." The complaint filed, as quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal, stated that "he has been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma 'as a direct and proximate result' of 'inhalation and ingestion of dust particles and fibers' from asbestos products." According to the complaint, A. H. Environment Inc. was the contractor and Alaimo Group was the consulting engineer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of