BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield 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


    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    A Reminder to Get Your Contractor’s License in Virginia

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act Provides New Opportunities for Owners, Developers, and Contractors

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    Subcontractor Exception to "Your Work" Exclusion Does Not Apply to Coverage Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    Texas Approves Law Ensuring Fair and Open Competition

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/20/22

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers Superpowers

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    New Report: Civil Engineering Salaries and Job Satisfaction Are Strong and Climbing at a Faster Rate Than Past Reports

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Too Soon?”

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    What Made the Savannah Harbor Upgrade So Complicated?

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    November 23, 2020 —
    VJ Associates, a Hicksville, N.Y., estimating consultant, has agreed to pay $3.13 million in civil and criminal penalties to settle charges that the firm overbilled and falsified hours on multiple federal and state government-funded transportation and other contracts in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston announced on Oct. 29. Reprinted courtesy of Eva Fedderly, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    July 30, 2015 —
    In Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed. California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible. But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    June 13, 2022 —
    As drought-plagued western states watch their water sources literally dry up, California is digging deeper to tap the most basic source of all: groundwater. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

    September 16, 2024 —
    The Washington Construction Lien Statute, RCW 60.04 et seq., exists to help secure payment for work performed for the improvement of real property.[1] The statute grants “any person furnishing labor, professional services, materials, or equipment for the improvement of real property” the authority to claim “a lien upon the improvement for the contract price of labor, professional services, materials, or equipment furnished.” RCW 60.04.021. Exercising lien rights is one of the most useful tools available to a contractor or supplier trying to recover payment owed on a project. A properly recorded lien binds the project property, which is typically the most valuable asset held by the owner, as security for the amounts owed to the lien claimant. Additionally, the lien statute provides a basis for the claimant to recover the costs of recording the lien and its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in litigating the foreclosure of the lien. While the lien statute authorizes the right to lien, it also provides a series of strict requirements and procedures that a claimant must follow to properly exercise its rights. The claimant must carefully comply with all statutory requirements. This article does not endeavor to explain all the intricacies of the lien statute, but rather discusses three of the most common mistakes that result in the loss of lien rights. See our lien and bond claim manual for a more detailed guide to construction liens in Washington. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    November 26, 2014 —
    The federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014). Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash. 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

    BWB&O Partners are Recognized as 2022 AV Preeminent Attorneys by Martindale-Hubbell!

    December 06, 2021 —
    Congratulations to BWB&O Partners on their recognition in Martindale-Hubbell® as AV Preeminent attorneys. This honor is given to attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers. Newport Beach Partner, Nicole Whyte Newport Beach Partner, Keith Bremer Newport Beach Partner, John Toohey Newport Beach Partner, Jeremy Johnson Woodland Hills Partner, John O'Meara Woodland Hills Partner, Patrick Au Arizona Partner, John Belanger Las Vegas Partner, Peter Brown Las Vegas Partner, Lucian Greco Las Vegas Partner, Anthony Garasi San Diego Partner, Vik Nagpal San Diego Partner, Alexander Giannetto Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

    August 05, 2024 —
    A “delay” on a construction project is defined as the stretching out of the time for completion of certain key milestone scopes of work which can impact the completion date of an entire project, due to some circumstances or events that were not reasonably anticipated when the project began. 2 Construction Law ¶ 6.01 (Matthew Bender, 2024). While delays can be caused by any number of events, the most common are defective plans and specifications; design changes; severe weather and other, similar unforeseeable events; unforeseen or differing site conditions; unavailability of materials or labor; labor inefficiencies or stoppages; contractor negligence; and owner influences, including construction changes or outright interference by the owner or its agents. If the project schedule is not recovered following a delay, then the project schedule will likely be extended, resulting in an increase in the contractor’s costs of performance. A contractor that has experienced a delay on a project can take certain actions to pursue recovery of any damages the contractor may have incurred. However, to do so it is important to understand the different types of delays and the methods for establishing the delays. I. Types of Delays Delays may be categorized as (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. A critical delay is a delay that affects the project completion date and delays the entire project. In essence, a critical delay is one that will extend the critical path of a project. A non-critical delay is a delay that has no effect on the project’s critical path. Courts have recognized that delays to work not on the critical path will generally not delay the completion of a project. G.M. Shupe, Inc. v U.S., 5 Cl. Ct. 662, 728 (1984). Such a non-critical delay may affect the completion of certain activities, but does not affect the completion date of the entire project. In order for a delay to provide the basis for a claim for additional time or money, the delay must impact critical path activities on the project schedule. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
    Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com