BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

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

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Think Before you Execute that Release – the Language in the Release Matters!

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    America’s Bridges and the Need for Bridge Infrastructure Investment

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

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

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    How to Protect a Construction-Related Invention

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance
    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

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    February 15, 2021 —
    In Cabatit v Sunnova Energy Corporation, the Third Appellate District held that an arbitration clause in a solar power lease agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In Cabatit, Mr. and Ms. Cabitat entered into a solar power lease agreement (the “Agreement”) with Sunnova Energy Corporation (“Sunnova”). Ms. Cabitat, who signed the agreement, speaks English but does not understand complicated or technical terms. The salesperson scrolled through the agreement language and Ms. Cabatit initialed where the salesperson indicated, even though she did not understand most of what he was saying. The salesperson did not explain anything about the arbitration clause nor did he provide Ms. Cabatit with a copy of the Agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    January 28, 2015 —
    It is an all-too-common scenario in California construction: Nine and a half years after completion of a major California construction project, immediately before the 10-year “statute of repose” for suing on “latent” construction defects expires, a lawsuit claiming damages for “recently discovered” latent construction defects is filed. The property owner sues the contractor for the alleged defects. The direct contractor sues all its subcontractors for indemnity and defense. The attorneys spontaneously generate. Experts proliferate. Claimed defects are extrapolated. Four or five years later, after a few dozen attorneys earn a small fortune in fees, the insurance companies make payments. Attorneys collect more fees. The owners take what remains. They repair nothing... and buy vacation homes. Perhaps a cynical view, but there are many in the construction defect world who would reach a similar conclusion. The question is: How can you defeat this seemingly inevitable chain of events? Under a case known as Brisbane Lodging L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. 216 Cal.App 4th 1249 (2013) there may be hope. California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 grant a 10-year “statute of repose” for bringing claims for “latent” construction defects. These statutes allow a lawsuit for such claimed defects to be filed in court up until ten years after the project has been completed. Latent defects are generally defined as those which are “not apparent by reasonable inspection” (CCP §337.15(b)). It is extremely common for such claims to be filed immediately before this 10-year deadline expires. When the lawsuit is brought, the cash register begins to ring. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Porter Law Group

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    December 09, 2019 —
    On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full. In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision). 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

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    September 30, 2024 —
    Beth Cook has joined Payne & Fears LLP as Counsel in the firm’s Insurance Litigation Group. With 18 years of legal experience, Beth brings a wealth of knowledge to her practice, focusing on insurance coverage and litigation. “We are excited to welcome Beth to P&F! She brings a great deal of experience to our Insurance Litigation Group as we continue to grow the practice group,” said Sarah Odia, the group’s co-chair. “We look forward to working with Beth and welcome her fresh perspectives.” Get to Know Beth What activities do you enjoy outside of work? Travel, sporting events, movies, craft breweries, and wineries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Beth A. Cook, Payne & Fears
    Ms. Cook may be contacted at bac@paynefears.com

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    November 13, 2013 —
    South Carolina State Plastering claimed in the South Carolina Court of Appeals that communication between attorneys and residents of a retirement community could undermine the judgment in the case. Residents of Sun City had filed a class action lawsuit over problems with stucco in the community. Phillip Segul, the plaintiffs’ attorney, noted that plasterer was “directly communicating with the class members and getting them to sign opt-outs and releases of their claims,” although this was something that Everett Kendall, the plasterer’s attorney denied. The lawsuit has been grinding along for six years. Some residents fear they won’t outlive the construction defect lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Autovol’s Affordable Housing Project with Robotic Automation

    February 15, 2021 —
    Just over two years since breaking ground, Autovol is now using automation in new ways as it nears completion of its first major affordable housing project. The project, Virginia Street Studios, will make high-quality apartment homes more affordable to seniors in San Jose, one of America’s 10 most expensive cities. The 400,000 square foot Autovol factory has now successfully deployed its unique combination of construction trades and robotic automation. Autovol has hired more than 100 employees, which the company calls Solutioneers. Led by CEO Rick Murdock and co-developed by The Pacific Companies, Autovol is pioneering a new kind of modular construction. Robotics lead into the future of housing “Automation and robotics will lead the world into the future of housing,” Murdock said. “What we’re doing hasn’t been attempted before. Our investors and Solutioneers leaned in with lots of confidence, and now we’re seeing great results that prove they were right.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    May 07, 2015 —
    When you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war. A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (overseeing federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia) Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, illustrates the various battle fronts involved in a construction case. In this case, the Carithers (Home Owner) sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates (Contractor) in state court after discovering multiple defects with their home. Battle Front #1—Claim Against Contractor The Contractor and Home Owner entered into a consent judgment for approximately $90,000.00 and the Contractor assigned its claim against its insurer to the Home Owner. It is unlikely that the Contractor paid the $90,000.00 judgment. The Home Owner likely agreed not to collect on the $90,000.00 in exchange for the chance to pursue the Contractor’s claim against its insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    July 02, 2024 —
    Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce that it has once again been ranked among the top of Construction Executive’s (CE) “The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™.” P&A has been recognized in this manner since 2019, the inaugural year of the publication’s rankings. According to CE, its 2024 ranking was the result of a rigorous and comprehensive survey that invited numerous U.S. law firms with a construction practice to participate. The data collected focused on unique metrics such as the firm’s construction practice, number of attorneys and clients, and year of establishment. CE’s algorithm meticulously weighed these factors, among others, to determine the ranking, ensuring the credibility and accuracy of the recognition. Firm Chair Steven M. Charney commented, “We are honored to be recognized as one of Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms.” This recognition serves as a resounding testament to our commitment to the construction industry and our team’s hard work and dedication. We remain committed to providing exceptional legal services to our clients and striving for excellence in all we do.” The complete rankings and profile are available here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.