BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    Are You Ready For 2015?

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Billion-Dollar Power Lines Finally Inching Ahead to Help US Grids

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

    What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Construction News Roundup

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?
    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

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    August 07, 2022 —
    The friendly confines of Wrigley Field are not so friendly to wheelchair users, according to federal prosecutors who filed a civil lawsuit July 14 alleging that the Chicago Cubs’ multi-year renovation of the baseball stadium eliminated prime wheelchair seating and did not include other accessible features required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    June 27, 2022 —
    A key federal infrastructure bill advanced with approval in the House of a measure providing $25.3 billion to help finance 22 Army Corps of Engineers storm and flood protection, ecological restoration, harbor dredging and other projects around the country. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    October 26, 2020 —
    When a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:
    When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.
    Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (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

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    September 17, 2018 —
    When it comes to building a bridge, what prevents it from having the most enduring and sustainable life span? What is its worst enemy? The answer is, simply, the bridge itself—its own weight. Built with today’s construction processes, bridges and buildings are so overly massed with energy and material that they’re inherently unsustainable. While concrete is quite literally one of the foundations of modern construction, it’s not the best building material. It’s sensitive to pollution. It cracks, stainsand collapses in reaction to rain and carbon dioxide. It’s a dead weight: Take San Francisco’s sinking, leaning Millennium Tower as an example. Reprinted courtesy of Massimiliano Moruzzi, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    October 27, 2016 —
    Sorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title. The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule. The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment. In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees. 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

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    April 01, 2015 —
    “There are no free houses,” began the decision issued by the Court of Appeal on March 23, 2015 in Boyce v. T.D. Service Company (B255958). Examining three years of litigation in bankruptcy court, unlawful detainer court, and the superior court, and each of their respective appellate courts, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Plaintiff was a borrower who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After plaintiff defaulted on the loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated. To avoid foreclosure, plaintiff engaged in a series of stall tactics, including filing an emergency bankruptcy petition, appealing the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant the trustee relief of stay, refusing to leave the property following the trustee’s sale thereby causing an unlawful detainer action to be filed, and appealing the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the unlawful detainer action. Once evicted, plaintiff sued all the entities involved in the foreclosure process for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, violation of Unfair Practices Act, and quiet title. When the trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers on the grounds of res judicata/collateral estoppel, plaintiff naturally appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    May 06, 2019 —
    Many subcontracts contain a provision in the default section that reads something to the effect: “Upon any default, Subcontractor shall pay to Contractor its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in enforcing this Subcontract or seeking any remedies hereunder.” Oftentimes, a party may wonder as to the enforceability of the provision and how it is applied in the context of a dispute between a contractor and its subcontractor where both parties have asserted claims against the other. In an opinion out of the Middle District of Georgia, U.S. f/u/b/o Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Stellar Group, Inc., 2019 WL 338887 (M.D.Ga. 2019), a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project each asserted claims against the other in the approximate amount of $4 Million, meaning there was a potential $8 Million swing in the dispute. The subcontract contained a provision entitling the contractor to recover attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the subcontract or seeking remedies under the subcontract upon any default, identical to the provision above. 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

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    May 26, 2011 —

    An arbitration panel has ruled that problems with the Idaho home of actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were not due to construction defects but rather to “poor design and bad architectural advice.” The couple had settled with the architectural firm, Lake Flato of San Antonio, Texas for $900,000 and was subsequently seeking $3 million from Storey Construction of Ketchum, Idaho.

    Problems with the couple’s home “included leaking roofs, inadequate drainage, fireplaces that did not vent properly and an inadequate air-conditioning system. In 2003, sliding snow from the roof damaged kitchen windows and roof components.”

    The arbitration panel, according to the report in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, noted that “Hanks and Wilson were responsible for the full $167,623 cost of arbitration, but further denied a Storey Construction counterclaim that alleged Hanks and Wilson filed their claim out of malice.”

    Read the full story…

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