BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

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

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    Hunton Insurance Group Advises Policyholders on Issues That Arise With Wildfire Claims and Coverage – A Seven-Part Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    Traub Lieberman Partner Adam Joffe Named to 2022 Emerging Lawyers List

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Can Your Industry Benefit From Metaverse Technology?

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    Is a Text a Writing?

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Unpredictable Opinion Regarding Construction Lien (Reinstatement??)

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot
    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

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    December 20, 2012 —
    The Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation. There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it. After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors. Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations. Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.” In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.” The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    August 17, 2017 —
    Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. 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

    Wilke Fleury Welcomes New Civil Litigation Attorney

    January 18, 2021 —
    Islam Ahmad represents clients on a broad range of civil ligation matters, with a focus on construction, real estate, and commercial disputes. He has represented all sides of construction and real estate cases, including owners, buyers, developers, and general contractors. He possesses superb legal research and writing skills that ensure no stone is left unturned that may improve the chances of victory for his clients. Islam Ahmad has a sophisticated working background and a wealth of experience that make him ideal for taking on clients’ challenging cases and resolving them in their best interest. His intuition makes him versatile and capable of dealing with a wide range of issues. Islam is also capable of incorporating business performance factors into his legal advice by drawing from his prior experience as a business consultant. This comprehensive approach allows him and his clients to develop sound risk management strategies and business plans. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    December 17, 2015 —
    Tishman Construction Corp., builder of One World Trade Center in New York’s financial district, admitted to an overbilling scheme spanning a decade and agreed to pay $20 million in restitution and penalties. The scam included the World Trade Center project, the renovation of the landmark Plaza Hotel on 5th Avenue and the expansion of the Javits Convention Center in Manhattan, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn, New York, said Thursday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erik Larson, Bloomberg

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    March 22, 2018 —

    The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the insured's claim for collapse coverage was rejected by the Supreme Court of New York. Parauda v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 25, 2018).

    The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass for damage to the brick siding, or façade, of their home, which was bulging near the front door. Encompass hired H2M Architects and Engineers to inspect the home and issue a report. H2M determined that the brick façade near the front door was separated from the house. Photos showed that the bricks had separated, the mortar joints were cracked, and there were cracks and deterioration in the mortar. H2M concluded that the brick façade was in poor condition and need repairs and/or replacement. H2M concluded that the separation of the brick façade was caused by water infiltration behind the wood trim and brick façade, occurring over a several year period. Encompass denied the claim based upon exclusions for "freezing, thawing," "wear and tear," and "inadequate maintenance."

    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

    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    August 04, 2021 —
    New World Development Co. will demolish two towers at Hong Kong’s most popular housing development in decades and compensate buyers after finding unexpected defects, in a major setback for the real estate company. The developer will pull down and rebuild the existing floors of Towers 1 and 8 at its Pavilia Farm III project near Tai Wai station after it found the concrete strength in some areas did not meet design requirements, the Hong Kong-based company said in a statement. Shares of New World fell as much as 4.8% Thursday in Hong Kong, the most in more than seven months, before recovering to close 3.9% lower. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Kwan, Bloomberg

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    August 19, 2015 —
    The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer after analyzing the known loss provision in the insured subcontractor's policy. Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10754 (9th Cir. June 25, 2015). The insured was awarded a subcontract to install manufactured stone at the residential project. The stone was affixed to the wall sheathing. The insured also wrapped deck posts with manufactured stone and installed masonry caps on the toe of the stone that was wrapped around the deck posts. After construction was completed, the insured was called back to the project to inspect cracks in the manufactured stone and masonry caps he installed. The insured told the general contractor that the cracks were likely due to settling. Three months after inspecting the cracks, the insured purchased a CGL policy from Mid-Continent. 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

    WATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast

    January 09, 2023 —
    Construction Executive presented its "2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast" webinar with Associated Builders and Contractors Chief Economist Anirban Basu on Dec. 14, sponsored by Aerotek, Bluebeam, CMiC and Raken. Basu started by announcing the Federal Reserve’s rate increase of 0.5%, the latest in a series of increases aimed at combating inflation. Calling 2022 a “year of tumult and a year of surprise,” Basu further noted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine surprised many, further disrupting global supply chains and causing a shockwave to ripple through global energy prices. Citing the U.S. Consumer Price Index, with 7.1% year-over-year inflation in November, Basu believes we’ve “peaked in terms of inflation for this cycle”; while inflation hit higher-than-expected levels throughout 2022, it leveled off at lower-than-expected rates by the end of the year. Basu predicted inflation will continue to be problematic through 2023 as it has shifted from transitory inflation due to supply-chain disruptions in 2020 and 2022 to broader inflation due to the labor market, noting that the worst of the supply-chain issues seem to be over, reaching a high point in late 2021. Blaming the injection of fiscal stimulus coming from the federal government, monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve and the fact that inflation has now become ingrained in the economy and in people’s expectations, leading to wage and price increases, Basu calls the economy “overheated.” Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of