BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Southern California Rising Stars List

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

    U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

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

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    How Many Bridges Does the Chesapeake Bay Need?

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Architect Has No Duty to Safeguard Third Parties Against Injury, Regardless of Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions on the Project

    Too Costly to Be Fair: Texas Appellate Court Finds the Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Unenforceable

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union
    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

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    April 29, 2024 —
    Including an arbitration clause in your construction contract may not mean that your dispute will be confined to arbitration. Instead, parties often find themselves in court litigating threshold issues related to the existence and/or enforceability of an arbitration clause. Common issues include whether the underlying contract containing the arbitration clause is valid, whether the dispute falls within the scope of the clause, whether the parties complied with contractual prerequisites to arbitration, whether issues related to arbitrability are decided by the court or arbitrator, and whether one of the parties has waived their right to arbitrate. This blog post highlights two recent construction cases addressing threshold issues that a party seeking to enforce—or oppose enforcing—an arbitration clause might face. Seifert v. United Built Homes, LLC: Delegating Issues of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator In Seifert, an owner sued a homebuilder in Texas federal court for breach of contract and sought damages and declaratory relief. No. 3:22-CV-1360-E, 2023 WL 4826206 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023). The builder moved to compel arbitration. The owner opposed and argued that: (1) there was no agreement to arbitrate because the underlying contract was null and void, and (2) its claim for declaratory relief fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The court did not address the merits of either argument. Instead, it determined that these were issues for the arbitrator to decide. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel D. McMillan, Jones Day and TJ Auner, Jones Day Mr. McMillan may be contacted at ddmcmillan@jonesday.com Mr. Auner may be contacted at tauner@jonesday.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    August 19, 2015 —
    The federal district court applied California law to find there was no coverage when the subcontractor was sued for broken tiles on a project. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015). The subcontractor installed stone floor tiles at the project. The developer discovered fractures in some of the tiles. The fractured tiles were removed and replaced. This remediation process required the removal and replacement of portions of drywall and concrete subfloor installed by other subcontractors. The developer sued the subcontractor, who tendered the defense to its insurer. The insurer denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage for the floor tile fracture claims. 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

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    April 25, 2011 —

    The city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.

    Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.

    While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.

    Read more from the El Paso Times

    Read more from the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog…

    Read more from the Surety1 Blog…

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

    Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

    October 29, 2014 —
    In a decision regarding a payment claim by a highway contractor against the City of Allentown, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that an award of attorney's fees and penalties is mandatory under the terms of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3901 et seq., upon a finding of bad faith by the non-paying government agency, even though the statute only states that a court “may” award such fees and penalties. In A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, Cmwlth. Ct. No. 2163 C.D. 2013, the plaintiff, A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Scott), won a contract with the City of Allentown (City) to construct a one mile roadway. Several weeks after commencing work, Scott learned that soil at the construction site was potentially contaminated with arsenic, and was instructed by the City to suspend its work. Because of the soil contamination, additional work would be required to complete the project and Scott submitted proposals for the additional work plus its suspension costs. However, the City never approved the additional work and the project was never completed. The City never paid Scott for costs incurred due to the suspension of the work and Scott filed suit to recover its losses. The jury found that the City had breached the contract with Scott and had acted in bad faith in violation of the Procurement Code, and awarded damages to Scott for its unreimbursed suspension costs. However, the trial court denied Scott’s request for an award of attorney's fees and penalty interest. Both Scott and the City appealed the final judgment to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the trial court’s refusal to award attorney's fees and penalties. Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    November 06, 2013 —
    Home builders are worried that the rising prices of new homes might not rise enough and be caught by the rising costs of building them, cutting into the profit margin. “If builders say the trajectory of margins is beginning to peak, then in a cyclical business, people tend to go from thinking the best to thinking the worst,” Stephen Kim, a Barclays analyst told the Wall Street Journal. As of the end of October, the U.S. Home Construction Index was 21% below its highest point in 2013, set back in May. Margins are still over those of last year. Meritage Homes saw a gross margin of 22.8% in 2013’s third quarter, when the same quarter in 2012 had a gross margin of 18.6%. Steven Hilton, the firm’s Chairman and CEO, predicted little or no growth and a decline toward 20% or 21%. On the other hand, with margins at 20.6%, Ryland Homes sees itself at a normal point. Larry Nicholson, the President and CEO of Ryland, said “there’s not a lot of room for it to grow.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    August 02, 2017 —
    The magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer, thereby eliminating coverage for property damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103015 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2017). Madelaine Chocolate owned a facility three blocks form the Atlantic Ocean and one block from the Jamaica Bay section of Long Island Sound. Hurricane Sandy arrived October 29, 2012. Madeline Chocolate's facility sustained significant damage to its inventory, production machinery and premises, as storm surge from both bodies of water hit the property. Operations ceased during the 2012 holiday season and beyond, resulting in millions of dollars in lost income. 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

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    February 05, 2015 —
    On January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    October 02, 2013 —
    After nearly a year of growth, residential construction contracts dropped 22% in the Denver area in August. Residential construction contracts are still above what they were before August 2012, but the gains since then have been wiped out. The value of contracts in August 2012 was $219.8 million, and this this August they have fallen to $171.7 million. Commercial construction also saw a reduction, however, there the fall was only 7%, dropping from $1.54 billion to $1.43 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of