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


    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending
    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

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    November 26, 2014 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. 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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    May 29, 2023 —
    “I never had a chance.” Such was the plea of a general contractor to a Maryland federal court after having been terminated for failure to perform. “The Agreement provides no express right to cure,” found the court, weighing in on the contractor’s wrongful termination claim. Indeed, the contract was also very clear on termination, allowing for termination for cause on numerous bases, including a common catchall: if the contractor “persistently fails to perform the provisions of this Agreement.” In advance of the actual date of termination, the owner wrote to the contractor, in accordance with the contract: “Notice is also given that seven days from the date of this correspondence, [owner] will exercise its [termination] rights under Section 13.2.2.2 of the Contract." The communication from the owner contained no discussion of allowing the contractor an opportunity to cure its alleged default. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

    August 07, 2023 —
    A nearly $2-billion funding plan approved by University of Tennessee trustees signals the go-ahead for 15 new capital projects at five locations including research, science and housing facilities along with a planned entertainment district for Neyland Stadium, home of the university's football team. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/8/23) – New Handling of Homelessness, Decline in Investments into ESG Funds, and Shrinking of a Homebuyer’s Dollar

    December 11, 2023 —
    Our latest roundup includes two large flood control projects in New Jersey, how residential REITs could benefit from higher interest rates, how the downfall of WeWork could cause expansive collateral damage, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Deferred Maintenance?

    December 17, 2024 —
    A Tennessee-based “outsourced maintenance vendor” to an engine company filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking to recover nearly $150,000 on “open account,” for work previously performed. The engine company removed the case to the Federal District Court in New Orleans and asserted as a defense that the vendor lacked a proper Louisiana construction contractor’s license. The engine company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the defense. Under Louisiana law, a contract between parties is “absolutely null”--considered to have never existed--where one of the parties performed services without a required Louisiana contractor’s license, and the combined work reaches a $50,000 threshold. The engine company asserted that the vendor performed typical construction contractor work, including plywood flooring, applied epoxy to concrete flooring, erected part of a commercial carport, undertook certain heavy demolition, and installed fences, guardrails, and wire racks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    April 19, 2021 —
    As of July 1, 2020, “[e]very person who is an officer, member, responsible manager, or director of a corporation or limited liability company seeking licensure under this chapter shall be listed on the application as a member of the personnel of record,” and they must match those officers listed on California Secretary of State’s (SOS) records. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7065 (b)(1)). This is a deviation from the Contractors State License Board’s (CSLB) past practice of requiring foreign corporations to associate as personnel of record only their president, in contrast to requiring domestic corporations to associate their president, secretary, and treasurer. Beware that the CSLB may discover that the licensee’s personnel of record are incomplete or incorrect when reviewing a license renewal application, because it will compare the SOS’s records to the license renewal application. A license renewal application requires the licensee to list its qualifier and personnel of record. If the SOS and CSLB records do not match, this could delay approval of the license renewal application until the missing personnel are added and fingerprinted. Reprinted courtesy of Amy Pierce, Lewis Brisbois, Mark Oertel, Lewis Brisbois and John Lubitz, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    November 30, 2017 —
    The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com