BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    Seabold Construction Ties Demise to Dispute with Real Estate Developer

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    More Musings on Why I Mediate

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Elyria, Ohio, to Invest $250M to Halt Illegal Sewage into Black River

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

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

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

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Congratulations 2020 DE, MA, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed

    Architect Searches for Lost Identity in a City Ravaged by War

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

    Calling Hurricanes a Category 6 Risks Creating Deadly Confusion

    The Preservation Maze

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Surviving the Construction Law Backlog: Nontraditional Approaches to Resolution

    California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center
    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

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    September 16, 2019 —
    On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    August 04, 2015 —
    It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    July 31, 2013 —
    The Federal District Court in Virginia found that allegations of faulty workmanship could arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Strongwell Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79163 (W. D. Va. June 4, 2013). Strongwell supplied certain fiberglass reinforced plastic materials to a subcontractor of Black & Veatch for a construction project at power plant. Black & Veatch subsequently sued Strongwell, claiming that numerous defects in Strongwell's materials and work were discovered after the project was completed. The complaint further alleged that as a result of the defects, there was widespread property damage to portions of the power plant. Nautilus defended under a reservation of rights. Nautilus also filed suit for a declaratory judgment that to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify Strongwell. Strongwell moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as it requested a declaration that there was no duty to defend. Strongwell also filed a motion to stay the coverage action until the underlying case was completed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Industry Outlook: Building a Better Tomorrow

    July 25, 2021 —
    COVID-19 plunged the business world into one of the most challenging times not seen since the Great Depression. The construction industry, deemed an essential business, had to quickly innovate to find new ways of working to weather this storm. Several of these seemingly temporary solutions have spawned positive trends that are here to stay. Not Just Green, But Healthy Too The safety culture that exists on today’s jobsites helped contractors stay productive through the pandemic. However, because of the pandemic, project owners and construction firms are evaluating their sites from a new perspective. In a recent meeting, the construction head for a healthcare system stated he knows a safe jobsite but doesn’t know what he doesn’t know about a healthy site. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Alberico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Alberico may be contacted at malberico@assuranceagency.com

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    September 14, 2017 —
    On a high level, construction delay litigation involves sorting out the impacts to the critical project path and determining which party is responsible for those impacts. One of the more difficult elements of this process is determining whether a delay would have occurred regardless of one party’s critical path impact due to a separate, independent impact to the critical path by the other party. For example, a contractor cannot collect delay damages for delays caused by the owner if the contractor itself was causing independent impacts that would have pushed off the completion date anyway. However, the concept of “pacing” provides a potential defense for a party who is not on pace with the as-planned schedule for noncritical activities, even where those activities are still ongoing after the planned completion date. “Pacing delays” are a type of concurrent delay that occur when one party makes a conscious decision to decelerate or slow down the pace of noncritical activities to keep pace with the critical delays of another party. A more formal definition would be “deceleration of the work of the project, by one of the parties to a contract, due to a delay caused by the other party, so as to maintain steady progress with the revised overall project schedule.” Zack, Pacing Delays–The Practical Effect, Construction Specifier 47, 48 (Jan. 2000). A party to the construction process may decide to slow down its performance of noncritical activities to keep pace with the delayed progress. For example, contractors may adjust the pace of their work in light of delays in owner-furnished equipment, delays by other multiple prime contractors, delays in permits, limited access, or differing site conditions. Owners may slow down their response time to requests for information or submittals, or postpone the delivery of owner-furnished equipment or the processing of change orders. Id. at 48. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    October 02, 2015 —
    On summary judgment, the insured general contractor prevailed not only on the duty to defend, but also the duty to indemnify. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103954 (S.D. N. Y. Aug. 7, 2015). 170 Broadway entered into a construction management agreement with McGowan Builders Inc. to serve as its construction manager for a hotel being built in Manhattan. Under the agreement, McGowan obtained a general liability policy from Old Republic naming 170 Broadway as an additional insured. 170 Broadway also secured its own policy from Wausau. Adam Burawski, an employee of a security company, came to the 170 Broadway site to meet with McGowan about provided security services for the project. Before the meeting, Burawski tripped and fell, sustaining a serious injury. 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

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    June 18, 2014 —
    24/7 Wall St., using data from RealtyTrac, “identified the county-level housing markets that have recovered the most from the housing crisis as of March of this year.” Number eight on the list was Weld County, Colorado, which had a percentage change of 11.1% and an unemployment rate of only 6.5%. Next on the list, was San Francisco County. The California county had a percentage change of 15.3% and an unemployment rate of 5.2%. Making number one on the list was Jefferson County, Kentucky, with a percentage change of 63.1% and unemployment rate of 8.1%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    July 10, 2018 —
    On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Orchard Hill Building Company’s (Orchard) complaint that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination erroneously found that the waters at issue were “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the Corps and EPA had promulgated a new rule re-defining “waters of the United States” in 2015—which is now being challenged in the courts—the Court of Appeals noted that this case is controlled by the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Corps, directing it to determine if there was a significant nexus, as required. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com