BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    Expert Can be Questioned on a Construction Standard, Even if Not Relied Upon

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    Appetite for Deconstruction

    Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun

    Bridges Need More Attention

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    What’s the Best Way to “Use” a Construction Attorney?

    US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

    Recovering Time and Costs from Hurricane Helene: Force Majeure Solutions for Contractors

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles
    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

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    March 04, 2024 —
    The UK needs to do a lot more building. A lack of access to physical and digital connections is holding back the economy, the government says. Besides tackling the housing crisis, the country has to construct more roads, railways, wind farms and reservoirs to open up opportunity and drive productivity. The only problem is that Britain is notoriously inept at delivering infrastructure projects on time and within budget. The advantage of doing things badly is that at least you get to learn from your mistakes — in theory. Updates this month have offered some illuminating insights into two of the biggest civil-engineering undertakings in the country: High-Speed Rail 2, better known as HS2, and Hinkley Point C, which will be Britain’s first new nuclear power station since 1995. Here are five lessons that can be drawn from the issues encountered by two projects with a combined bill that’s likely to exceed £100 billion ($127 billion): Don't take budgets too seriously — especially at the start. Fixing an initial budget that was too low may have done much to feed later perceptions that HS2’s costs were spiraling out of control. The original estimate for the expanded train network was set too early and based on “very immature data,” Jon Thompson, appointed executive chair of High Speed 2 Ltd. in February last year, told the House of Commons transport committee. Numbers get more accurate and reliable as work progresses and the quality of information improves. What were viewed as cost blowouts partly reflected this process. The effect was unfortunate, undermining political support for HS2 and providing cover for cutbacks that have reduced the network to a single line between London and Birmingham that fails to fulfill most of its original purpose. To avoid this problem: Stick to a range rather than a single figure, and make sure people understand the uncertainties inherent in early-stage estimates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Brooker, Bloomberg

    Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions

    March 16, 2017 —
    On February 27, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its decision in the Goodman v. Heritage Builders, No. 16SA193, 2017 CO 13 (Colo. February 27, 2017) case. In ten short pages, the Colorado Supreme Court completely reshuffled Colorado construction law with respect to application of the statutes of limitation and repose on third-party claims in construction defect cases. Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court overruled a series of earlier Court of Appeals' decisions that found C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) (“104(1)(b)(II)”) had no effect on the six-year statute of repose. For context, 104(1)(b)(II) permitted third-party actions for indemnity and contribution to toll until ninety days after the claims in the underlying action were resolved by settlement or judgment. In the construction context, 104(1)(b)(II) was intended to allow a general contractor’s claims against liable subcontractors to toll for the statutorily defined period. This allowed the general contractor to first focus its attention on defending the claims against and thereafter to pursue its claims against the subcontractors. However, beginning in 2008, in the Thermo Dev., Inc. v. Cent. Masonry Corp., 195 P.3d 1166 (Colo. App. 2008) case, the Colorado Court of Appeals began chipping away at the force of 104(1)(b)(II). This trend continued in the Shaw Constr., LLC v. United Builder Servs., Inc., 2012 COA 24, 296 P.3d 145 decision, the Sierra Pac. Indus., v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ­_ P.3d_ decision, and culminating in the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc., 2016 COA 158, reh'g denied (Nov. 23, 2016) decision. Effectively, in these decisions, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that third-party claims could not be brought beyond Colorado’s six-year statute of repose, regardless if they were brought within the ninety day tolling provision set forth in 104(1)(b)(II). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    May 13, 2014 —
    A study by two Columbia University economists demonstrated that “the extra 1% ‘mansion’ tax New York state and New Jersey impose on home sales above $1 million actually reduce[d] the number of total real estate transactions, in addition” it pushed “home sales that might have taken place for above $1 million to below that threshold,” Forbes reported. The “mansion” tax only occurs when the residential sale is above $1 million, “meaning a buyer who pays $999,999 for a house, condo or coop would owe no mansion tax.” The study showed a “dramatic” gap “in sales of homes for between $1 million and $1,040,000 (with more sales missing in that range than bunched just below $1 million).” The economists’ concluded that “the mansion tax causes an ‘unraveling’ effect, actually disrupting some sales of properties that would otherwise have taken place.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

    August 19, 2024 —
    Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:
    1. Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
    2. Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
    3. Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    July 31, 2013 —
    On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Minimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10

    November 26, 2014 —
    The Department of Labor issued its final regulations to implement President Obama’s Executive Order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for workers on federal construction projects. The new minimum wage will not be effective until January 1, 2015, and will apply to most workers and most federal projects. Covered Contracts Executive Order 13658 applies to four major categories of contractual agreements:
    • procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) that exceed $2,000;
    • service contracts covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA) that exceed $2,500;
    • concessions contracts, including any concessions contract excluded from the SCA by the Department of Labor’s regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b); and
    • contracts in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    October 01, 2013 —
    A former president of the Associated General Contractors in Idaho has been found guilty of attempting to defraud the U.S. Government. Elaine Martin filed false income taxes, allowing her to participate in a program that helped economically and socially disadvantaged businesses. Ms. Martin has convicted on both the fraud tax evasion charges. Ms. Martin’s business partner, Darrell Swigert, has also been convicted. He was found guilty of obstruction of justice. Mr. Swigert helped Ms. Martin conceal the extent of her income. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The National Building Museum’s A-Mazing Showpiece

    July 09, 2014 —
    The “massive maze” designed by the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) is now open at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C., reported Architect Magazine. The roughly 60-foot square maze reaches about 18 feet, but the “walls slope in toward the center, allowing visitors to see more of the maze as they move through it.” When you reach the center, you get a complete overview of the maze. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of