BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tender Is the Fight”

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

    $31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion
    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

    Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire

    September 25, 2023 —
    As the federal government, individual states, businesses and consumers take steps to address climate change, the use of renewable energy – including roof-mounted solar panels – has steadily increased. Over the past decade, the use of solar energy solutions has grown by 33% annually. This is driven by tax-based incentives for clean energy, combined with installation costs that are down more than 50% from 10 years ago.1 As more companies execute climate-focused goals to limit greenhouse emissions, reduce their carbon-footprint and lower energy costs, the use of solar power for commercial buildings is likely to increase. Currently, it's estimated that only 3.5% of commercial buildings have rooftop solar panels, but 70% are potential targets for solar.2 We know the use of solar power can have positive impacts on the environment and generate long-term energy cost savings. However, there are several considerations and potential risks that commercial property owners and facilities managers should consider prior to investing in solar, says Tracey Greene, underwriting director for Middle and Large Commercial Real Estate at The Hartford. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    February 12, 2024 —
    Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. 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

    Houston Home Sales Fall for the First Time in Six Months

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Houston home sales fell in February for the first time in six months, a sign lower oil prices are spooking buyers. Sales of single-family houses dropped 5.8 percent from a year earlier to 4,521 homes, the Houston Association of Realtors reported Wednesday. Purchases fell among residences costing less than $150,000 because of tight supply, and among properties selling for more than $500,000 as wealthier buyers paused amid economic uncertainty, said James Gaines, research economist at Texas A&M University’s real estate center. “They don’t know what the real impact of falling oil prices is,” Gaines said in a telephone interview from College Station, Texas. “We’re living in the twilight of uncertainty.” Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Kahana Feld Receives 2024 OCCDL Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award

    September 30, 2024 —
    IRVINE, CA – Sep. 12, 2024 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm received the 2024 Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award from the Orange County Coalition for Diversity in the Law (OCCDL). The firm will be recognized at an awards gala at The Westin South Coast Plaza on October 3. Each year, the OCCDL recognizes individuals and organizations who have advanced diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Orange County legal community, whether through their excellence in the law or their direct efforts to promote DEI. Kahana Feld was recognized for programs such as its DEI book club and its regular webinars on topics like implicit bias. The firm supports various DEI organizations and initiatives in the Orange County area, including the Orange County Asian American Bar Association, the Orange County Women Lawyers Association, and the Jewish Federation of Orange County. The OCCDL is a collaborative effort of professionals from leading Orange County law firms and other community partners promoting the advancement of diverse attorneys in Orange County. The OCCDL partners with local schools and organizations to increase community involvement and provides education focused on diversity to students and attorneys. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    July 14, 2016 —
    Shaken? Stirred? A bit hot under the tuxedo collar perhaps? Maybe it’s time for a martini. Or two. When your project’s a mess, your contractor isn’t returning your calls, and you don’t have a license to kill it’s only natural that you would want to go after that other license: the contractor’s license bond. However, except for smaller claims, or situations where you discover that the contractor is or might be judgment-proof, going after a contractor’s license bond isn’t necessarily the panacea many might hope it to be. Read on to learn why. What is a license bond? First, a license bond is not insurance. While insurance is typically limited to property damage and personal injury, a license bond covers a contractor’s violation of the Contractors State License Law. All California contractors are required to have on file a license bond (or, alternative, such as a cash deposit) with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    November 30, 2016 —
    When the indemnity provision of a contract conflicts with ORS 30.140, it is voided to the extent that it conflicts with the statute, but no more. Such provisions can remain partially valid and enforceable.[i] In Montara Owner Assn., the owner brought claims against the contractor for construction defects and damage relating to the construction of 35 townhouses. Contractor then brought third-party claims against more than 20 subcontractors for breach of contract and indemnity. Before trial, contractor settled with all but one subcontractor. The subcontract contained an indemnity provision requiring subcontractor to indemnify contractor for losses arising out of subcontractor’s work, including losses caused in part by contractor’s own negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki James Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    September 26, 2022 —
    Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    February 24, 2020 —
    On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of