BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction forensic 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


    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing Barrier

    How To Lock Disputes Out Of Your Project In Construction

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Slowing Home Sales Show U.S. Market Lacks Momentum: Economy

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

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

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

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

    Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

    3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Feds OK $9B Houston Highway Project After Two-Year Pause

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

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    Supreme Court Upholds Prevailing Wage Statute
    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

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    May 11, 2020 —
    I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. 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

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    January 02, 2019 —
    The California Legislature introduced over 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2019, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
    Mr. McLennon may be contacted at dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    February 05, 2024 —
    Florida’s newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) recently certified conflict with Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on the issue of retroactive application of the pre-suit notice requirement contained in Florida Statute §627.70152.1 Earlier this year, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) held that the pre-suit notice provision applies retroactively, meaning, it applies to all suits filed after July 1, 2021, regardless when the insurance policy was issued.2 The Sixth DCA, in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,3 directly rejected the Fourth DCA’s interpretation and instead found a retroactive application of the pre-suit notice to be unconstitutional under Florida law. Prior to the Fourth DCA’s ruling, most trial courts had found no retroactive application for the pre-suit notice provision.4 In August 2021, shortly after Florida Statutes Section 627.70152 went into effect on July 1, 2021, Rebecca Hughes (“Hughes”) sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal Property”) for breach of contract after Universal Property denied her insurance claim. Hughes did not file a pre-suit notice under Section 627.70152. Universal Property moved to dismiss based on Hughes’ failure to file the pre-suit notice, arguing that the pre-suit notice requirement applies to all lawsuits filed after July 1, 2021, even if the claimant’s insurance policy was issued before the statute’s effective date. The trial court agreed with Universal Property and dismissed the lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    January 19, 2017 —
    If you’re a public entity or contractor involved in public works construction you should be aware of a new law, AB 626, which took effect on the first of this year and establishes a new mandatory claims resolution process for disputes on public works projects. Here’s what you need to know: What is the new law and where is it codified at? AB 626 added new Public Contract Code Section 9204 that according to the bill’s author, Assemblymember David Chiu of San Francisco, establishes “a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    March 29, 2021 —
    For the past year, employers faced unprecedented difficulties as they navigated the twists, turns and ever-present challenges the COVID-19 pandemic dished out. A year later, new challenges face employers. The promise of vaccines, the fear of new variants, and the realization that “normal” will never look quite the same, leave many employers to wonder: “what next?”. As employers prepare to enter the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, here are five things they should plan to do. 1. Update Workplace Safety Measures At the onset of the pandemic, employers struggled to understand the safety obligations involved in preventing the spread of COVID in the workplace. As we approach the second year of the pandemic, clearer legal standards and better science exist requiring employers to update the steps they are taking to keep their workplaces safe. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura H. Corvo, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Corvo may be contacted at corvol@whiteandwilliams.com

    The ARC and The Covenants

    May 30, 2018 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Mike Collignon. Mike is a co-founder of the Green Builder Coalition. The Green Builder® Coalition amplifies the voice of green builders and professionals to drive advocacy and education for more sustainable building practices. As we start to see signs of a housing recovery, slow as it may be, I feel the industry is in a great position. All the effort put in by so many to improve our energy codes, green building programs & rating systems will finally be able to bear fruit. We can start to build homes that are much more environmentally responsible. Sure, we can have a lengthy debate about implementation and adoption rates, but you’ve got to walk before you can run. Unfortunately, I can see that progress getting shackled by an unexpected impediment: the architectural review committee (ARC; sometimes called “architectural committee” or “architectural control authority”) and the covenants of a homeowners’ association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    January 28, 2019 —
    A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    March 09, 2020 —
    The design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project. The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway. In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com