BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under Scrutiny

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    California Plant Would Convert Wood Waste Into Hydrogen Fuel

    FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    Experts: Best Bet in $300M Osage Nation Wind Farm Dispute Is Negotiation

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

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

    Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    August 13, 2019 —
    Division V of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, corporate veil-piercing in the context of a single-member, single-purpose LLC that is managed under a contract by another company. On July 3, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Honorable Ross B. Buchannan, Denver District Court Judge (17CA2102), who held that Plaintiff/Appellee Christopher Hinds satisfied the elements required to pierce the corporate veil of Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation (“Sedgwick”). Background Defendant 1950 Logan, LLC (“1950 Logan”) was the developer of a building located at 1950 Logan Street, in Denver, called The Tower on the Park (“Project”), which contained 141 individually owned condominium units. The Project was completed in 2006. 1950 Logan was a single-purpose entity created for the construction of the Project, which is a common practice in the construction industry. After the units were sold in 2006, the LLC wrapped up operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    March 05, 2015 —
    What is Digit Analysis and Why it Should be of Interest to Construction Attorneys? Benford’s Law was named after Frank Benford, a General Electric physicist. Mr. Benford was the first to discover that “leading digits” do not follow a uniform distribution pattern as suggested by intuition. If you are like me, the response to such a statement is “huh”? But stick with me because this is important stuff to anyone who suspects a claim presentation may have been rigged, a bit here or a bit there, or maybe all over. It turns out that calculations purportedly based upon naturally, randomly occurring numbers may have been contrived. By “randomly occurring” we mean numbers that occur naturally without human interference as opposed to a contrived selection. Said another way, it is now accepted as a mathematical truth that the pattern of numbers randomly generated can be distinguished from numbers influenced by human intervention. Yikes, glad you told me that before I prepared my taxes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

    September 16, 2024 —
    Forum selection provisions are NOT to be overlooked. Ever. Treat them seriously. Even on federal projects where there is a Miller Act payment bond. Consider forum selection provisions on the front end when negotiating your contract. In a recent opinion, U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline Construction Group, LLC vs. Aptim Federal Services, LLC, 2024 WL 3597164 (M.D.Fla. 2024), a joint venture prime contractor was hired by the federal government to build a temporary housing site. The joint venture prime contractor obtained a Miller Act payment bond. The joint venture then entered into a subcontract with one of its joint venture members and the member-subcontractor then engaged a sub-subcontractor. The sub-subcontractor claimed it was owed $3.5 Million and sued the member-subcontractor, as well as the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond, in the Middle District of Florida. The member-subcontractor and the Miller Act payment bond sureties moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the contract between the sub-subcontractor and the member-subcontractor. The contract provided that the exclusive venue would be a United States District Court located in Louisiana. Forum selection provisions are analyzed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a): “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline, supra at *2. A forum selection provision is presumptively valid and given controlling weight. Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 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

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    May 13, 2019 —
    It can take hours, or even days, to find a specific scissor lift on a large construction site – multiply that with hundreds of machines on the site and, then, you grasp the scale of the dilemma. Three companies joined forces to test an IoT solution that could fix the problem, cost-efficiently. Ramirent is a construction equipment rental and service firm that operates in nine European countries. It uses digital tools and services to add value to its customers and improve the efficiency of construction operations. In November 2018, Ramirent, SRV, and Kaltiot completed a test on promising technology that is used to locate construction equipment indoors. The experiment took place in Helsinki and was partly funded by the national KIRA-digi digitalization project. Setting up the Test Tomi Anttila, Development Manager at Ramirent Finland Oy, explained that they chose scissor lifts as a test subject for a particular reason: “They are an essential tool in construction. Whenever you have to work flexibly above the floor level – doing HVACE installations, for example – you need a movable lift. On our test site, REDI, there were over 150 lifts at any moment.” 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

    Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

    May 22, 2023 —
    The construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are. For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    December 07, 2020 —
    White and Williams is pleased to announce that John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the Wilmington office, Partner Stephen Milewski and Counsel Dana Spring Monzo have been chosen by their peers as Delaware Today's 2020 "Top Lawyers." The annual list recognizes John, Steve and Dana in the practice area of Medical Malpractice for the Defense. John has over 30 years of experience defending complex tort cases and is recognized as one of the leading trial lawyers in the State of Delaware. Steve has over 15 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in healthcare law, particularly defending hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers in medical negligence cases. Dana's practice is focused on complex civil litigation, primarily medical malpractice. For more than a decade she has represented the interests of physicians, hospitals and healthcare providers in Delaware. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    December 04, 2013 —
    There was a slowing in the third quarter, but home builders expect that 2013 will see more than 9,000 home starts in the San Antonio area. And even though the third quarter was slow, it was still about 3% above the same quarter in 2012. And the new homes are more expensive. Jack Inselmann, a senior vice president at MetroStudy noted that “in 2011, 40 percent of housing activity was under $175,000. And here we are two years later and 31 percent is under $175,000.” He worries that people looking for homes will go to the resale market, instead of buying a new home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

    April 25, 2022 —
    Does a constructive acceleration claim require the contractor to always request an extension of time which is then denied by the owner? While this is certainly the preference and the contractor should be requesting an extension of time as a matter of course for an excusable delay, the answer is NO! in certain circumstances. This is conveyed in the factually detailed case discussed below where a formal request for an extension of time was not required for the contractor to support its constructive acceleration claim. But first, what is constructive acceleration: Constructive acceleration “occurs when the government demands compliance with an original contract deadline, despite excusable delay by the contractor.” The Federal Circuit in Fraser defined the elements of constructive acceleration as follows: (1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule. Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, *42 (Fed.Cl. 2022) quoting Fraser Constr. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 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