BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction experts
    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


    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Partner John Van Vlear Named to Board Of Groundwater Resources Association Of California

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

    The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

    The Economic Loss Rule: From Where Does the Duty Arise?

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    UConn’s Law-School Library Construction Case Settled for Millions

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

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    Housing Affordability Down

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose
    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. Drawing 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

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    September 17, 2015 —
    The Fifth Circuit considered whether coverage was barred under the policy's insured versus insured provision. Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12976 (5th Cir. July 27, 2015). Georgia-Pacific hired Advanced Services, Inc. for demolition work at Georgia-Pacific's idled plywood plant. A fire occurred at the plant, damaging equipment Advanced had leased from H&E Equipment for the demolition work. Several lawsuits followed. One was brought by H&E against Advanced. Advanced filed a third-party demand for indemnification against Georgia-Pacific for any damages Advanced was required to pay H&E. 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

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    December 26, 2022 —
    California is one of the most employee-friendly states in the country. From strict hiring laws (don’t think about asking about an applicant’s criminal, credit or even salary history), to generous benefits (minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, family medical leave, etc.) and strict anti-harassment laws (if you have to think about it, even for a second, don’t do it), to protections for terminated workers (whistle blower protections, WARN notices, non-compete restrictions), California workers enjoy protections that many others do not. This includes PAGA, or the Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits against their employers to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. In general, the right of an employee to file a PAGA action cannot be waived by contract. However, Labor Code section 2699.6 which was enacted in 2018 provides an exception for construction workers who perform work under certain collective bargaining agreements. In the next case, Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and heating Corporation, 82 Cal.App.5th 938 (2022), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether collective bargaining agreement with a retroactive date, signed after an employee was terminated, precluded an employee from bringing a PAGA action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    March 06, 2023 —
    We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    November 21, 2018 —
    Nov. 15, 2018 Update: After calling on Nov. 8 for a “complete structural evaluation” of San Francisco's 1.2-million-sq-ft SalesForce Transit Center, following the discovery on Sept. 25 of significant, mid-span cracks in the bottom flanges of twin parallel girders spanning 80 ft over Fremont Street, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority now says the problems with girders are localized. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    October 12, 2020 —
    As is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position. A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters. Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Likman may be contacted at likman@hhmrlaw.com

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    January 31, 2022 —
    There’s a new climate push in the building industry: regenerative architecture. The sector has been trying for years to cut its sizeable carbon footprint, which was responsible for 38% of the world’s energy-related greenhouse gases in 2019. But developers need to go beyond preventing pollution if they want to help avoid catastrophic climate change, according to Sarah Ichioka and Michael Pawlyn, co-authors of a new book titled Flourish: Design Paradigms for Our Planetary Emergency. They argue that buildings should be designed in a regenerative way — a process that mimics nature by restoring its own materials and sources of energy. It goes further than sustainable design, which seeks to reduce harm to the environment and use only essential materials. “More than half of humanity’s total historic greenhouse-gas emissions have occurred since the concept of ‘sustainability’ entered the mainstream,” Ichioka and Pawlyn write. “It is now time to embrace a new regenerative approach to design and development.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Damian Shepherd, Bloomberg

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    February 21, 2013 —
    On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    September 10, 2014 —
    The Phoenix Metro area is finally pulling out of the Great Recession of 2008. Potential homebuyers are frantically looking to buy a home before interest rates rise and prices continue their ascent to normalcy. For the last several months, residential construction builders have continued to buy more land around the Valley of the Sun for new subdivisions, especially in North Phoenix and the East Valley. In fact, from January through May of 2013, in the Phoenix Metro area alone, 86 new communities have come to fruition—more than all of 2012. Nationally, single-family housing starts reached 667,000 in December 2013 according to the National Association of Home Builders tracking of single-family home starts, which is comparable to 1985 levels. It has been well documented that since the conclusion of World War II, Arizona’s population growth fostered new home construction at a rapid, almost unmatched pace. At the 2006 construction peak, Arizona’s residential construction output climbed to 64,000, more than double the average 20,000 to 30,000 new homes that are typically constructed annually. Building rates have not come close to the 2006 numbers, but new home starts increased 70 percent since 2012. So after six years after the real estate bubble popped, is the construction industry in Arizona finally back to normal? It depends on your definition of “normal.” In 2009, foreclosures reached alarming proportions. However, in 2010, the engine of Arizona’s population growth, the Phoenix Metro area, began to grow again. Since 2010, Maricopa County had added 125,000 residents. There is strong demand for new housing, and appreciating housing prices has let the construction industry get back on its feet. In residential construction, supply is tight, and all cash offers are common. We all know that Wall Street played a huge role in creating the housing bubble, and eventual bust, by facilitating the use of risky, sub-prime mortgages and turning them into securities that were sold to investors, pension-funds, and the like. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of