BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design 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


    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    Renovation Makes Old Arena Feel Brand New

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

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

    Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    Nancy Conrad Recognized in Lehigh Valley Business 2024 Power in Law List

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

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

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    Signs of a Slowdown in Luxury Condos

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Hail Drives Construction Spending in Amarillo

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak
    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

    Will Claims By Contractors on Big Design-Build Projects Ever End?

    February 27, 2023 —
    In the annals of construction disputes, it is a blip, not a blast. After a Flatiron Construction-Zachry Group joint venture struck out on most of its arbitrated claims against engineering firm partners on the I-85/385 design-build interchange project in Greenville, S.C., and had others dismissed in court, the contractors had one more source from which to try to cover unexpected project costs: a contractor protective professional policy. Flatiron-Zachry filed a lawsuit last October in San Antonio federal court to try to force payment from Steadfast, a subsidiary of Zurich American Insurance Co. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    August 13, 2014 —
    The appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that the policy covered only mold damage, but not damage caused by water seepage. Henderson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2014). The homeowner's policy covered losses caused by constant seepage or leakage of water or the presence of condensation or moisture over a period of time. The insureds also paid for additional coverage for "ensuing mold . . . caused by or resulting from" one of the covered risks, including water seepage. Ms. Henderson discovered a puddle of water in her kitchen and contacted Georgia Farm Bureau. The insurer's contractor tore out a section of the floor, but found no other problems of water seepage. Later, the Hendersons removed another part of the floor and discovered standing water and black mold underneath. The Hendersons had to vacate their house for one year. 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

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    April 05, 2017 —
    The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding there was no duty to defend or indemnify a tenant/insured's contract-related claims. Erie Ins. Exch. v. Little Ducklings Daycare Associates, LP, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 22 (Pa. D. Jan. 25, 2017). Little Ducklings Daycare Preschool ("tenant") leased from the Estate of Carmen Neri ("landlord") premises to run a day care center for five years. The lease identified two of tenant's members, Maryanne L. Hatzold and Thomas Hatzold, as guarantors for the lease. The Hatzolds ("Guarantors") delivered to the landlord a written lease guaranty agreement. The guarantee assured the full payment and satisfaction of the rent owed under the lease. 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

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    November 30, 2016 —
    The Spearin doctrine, referred to as the implied warranty of constructability doctrine, is oftentimes utilized as an affirmative defense by a contractor being sued for construction defects. Under the Spearin doctrine (recognized in the government contract setting), a contractor is NOT liable for defects in the plans and specifications furnished by the owner if the contractor constructs the project pursuant to the plans and specifications. This is because the owner impliedly warrants the constructability of the plans and specifications it furnishes to the contractor. Hence, the contractor should not be liable for defective construction caused by the owner furnishing defective plans and specifications. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    January 22, 2014 —
    This summer, Sahara Sam’s Oasis, located in West Berlin, New Jersey, will open Diggerland Adventure Park, a new 14-acre construction equipment themed amusement park, according to Equipment World. The United Kingdom currently has Diggerlands in four locations: “There, the parks use primarily JCB backhoes, excavators, and skid steers in a variety of ways.” Machines are used as rides, including “Spindizzy, in which an excavator takes a bucket full of people on a 360 degree spin.” Diggerland is currently owned by Allsafety Ltd. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    April 05, 2017 —
    In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    June 29, 2017 —
    Plaintiff Ivana Kirola, who suffers from cerebral palsy, sued the City and County of San Francisco, in a class action contending certain public areas, including rights-of-way, pools, parks and other recreation areas, did not meet the mandate of Title II of the American With Disabilities Act (Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-17521, 2017 DJDAR 5982). Title II provides that no qualified individual with a disability “shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” Title II’s implementing regulations mandate that each facility constructed after January 26, 1992 be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” And, for each facility “altered after January 26, 1992,” the altered portion must, “to the maximum extent feasible,” be likewise accessible. The Federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board creates nonbinding Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to ensure compliance with Title II, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopt its own binding regulations, consistent with the ADAAG standards. Here, the District Court interpreted ADAAG standards as not applying to public rights-of-way, parks, and playground facilities. The District Court concluded that none of Kirola’s experts were reliable in their interpretation of the standards and how the standards applied to the public rights-of-way, etc. Conversely, the District Court concluded that all of the city’s experts were reliable. It thus disregarded and discarded every ADAAG violation identified by Kirola’s experts, accepting only the small number of violations identified by the city’s experts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard E. Morton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Morton may be contacted at rmorton@hbblaw.com

    Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

    November 13, 2023 —
    I have discussed the need for attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my construction contract basics posts. Why would you want such a provision? The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision. Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs. In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise. While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia. Throw in the fact that Virginia courts strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com