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


    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    #2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Christopher Leise Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers 2022 "Lawyer of the Year"

    Engineer at Flint Negligence Trial Details Government Water Errors

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Project Labor Agreements Will Now Be Required for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    Historical Long-Tail Claims in California Subject to a Vertical Exhaustion Rule

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/26/24) – Construction Growth in Office and Data Center Sectors, Slight Ease in Consumer Price Index and Increased Premiums for Commercial Buildings

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

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

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    Expanded Virginia Court of Appeals Leads to Policyholder Relief

    Consumer Prices Rising as U.S. Housing Stabilizes: Economy

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award
    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

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    February 28, 2018 —
    The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA. The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.

    The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.

    The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.

    The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”

    The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.

    The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”

    The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around

    November 16, 2020 —
    Our latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay. THE FEDERAL COURTS A Wolf Among the Butterflies On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    June 15, 2020 —
    Many debate the pros, cons and claims of retainage—when one party to a construction contract withholds a percentage (typically 5%-10%) from an otherwise approved contractor pay application, and which typically is not paid until a project is substantially complete. If an owner withholds retainage from a prime contractor, typically the contractor will in turn withhold retainage from its subcontractors. While retainage has been part of the construction industry for decades, its concept, use (and abuse) have been under more discussion during the past 10 years. Based on heavy lobbying from primary subcontractor groups, state legislatures have passed laws to regulate retainage in commercial projects. Lenders have become more careful about loans and are frequently involved in retainage discussions. Bonded projects are subject to criticism when a surety does not step in and, like the mythical insurance company, write a check. Reprinted courtesy of David K. Taylor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at dtaylor@bradley.com

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    November 13, 2013 —
    The downward trend in attached-housing construction in Colorado is well-known and discussed often within the region’s construction, insurance, finance, and legal communities. In recent years, builders and insurers in particular have striven to bring greater awareness to local governments and lawmakers regarding the impact that construction defect lawsuits have on the builders’ ability to introduce desirable, affordable, yet cost-efficient attached-housing options, such as condominiums and townhomes, into the marketplace. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (“DRCOG”) has been aware of the builders’ and insurers’ plight, largely because of the impact that the scarcity of affordable attached-housing has had on their respective communities. On October 29th, DRCOG released its long-awaited Denver Metro Area Housing Diversity Study, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., which investigated the factors contributing to the recent (downward) attached-housing development trends and conditions. The Study evaluated factors including changing financing and insurance requirements for builders and homebuyers, the impacts of foreclosures, changes in prospective homebuyer demographics, economic conditions which limit options for prospective homebuyers, and the costs and risks associated with construction defect regulations and lawsuits. Despite the retorts and rebukes of the naysayers, the negative impact of construction defect regulations and lawsuits on Colorado’s housing market is significant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
    Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    September 17, 2015 —
    In what could lead to a draconian result, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a contractor who performs work without a valid license can be required to disgorge all payments received, even if the contractor perfectly performed its work. The case, Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393), involved an $18,000,000 contract between Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Jacobs Facilities”) and the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”). In April 2006, Jacobs Facilities, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs Engineering”) entered into a three year contract with the Judicial Counsel to maintain 121 courthouses and other judicial branch buildings throughout Southern California (the “Contract”). Jacobs Facilities contracted to provide maintenance and oversight services, while retaining subcontractors to perform the actual maintenance and repair work. In December 2006, as part of a corporate reorganization, Jacobs Engineering started winding up Jacobs Facilities and transferred its employees to Jacobs Engineering and then subsequently to another wholly owned subsidiary called Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs Management”). The work that was performed by Jacobs Facilities was taken over by Jacobs Management. As part of the windup, Jacobs Facilities’ Contractor’s State License Board license was allowed to lapse and the license expired by operation of law in November 2008. Although Jacobs Management was now performing the work, it was not added as a party to the contract. Although it appears Judicial Council was aware of the corporate changes, it was not until November 2009 that the parties assigned the contract to Jacobs Management. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    February 25, 2014 —
    This year will be the twenty-first anniversary of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar, which brings together industry professionals locally as well as internationally. Early registration begins in the evening of Wednesday, May 14th, while the main events take place on May 15th and 16th at the Disneyland Hotel and Resort. For attendees who wish to explore more of southern California before or after the seminar, you can show your badge and save at many venues including the Warner Bros. VIP Studio Tour, Medieval Times, Pinot Provence, Crossroads at House of Blues, Morton’s Steakhouse, as well as many other establishments. You may register for the seminar online. They are offering a $50 discount to attendees who register before April 15th. Download an invitation or register for the event... Show Your Badge and Save... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    March 13, 2023 —
    On February 14, 2023, Seattle voters passed Initiative 135, creating the “Seattle Social Housing Developer” (“Public Developer” or “PD”) and the initiative was signed into law by Mayor Bruce Harrel on March 1, 2023.[1] With this initiative, voters created Seattle’s newest housing developer. The PD aims to develop, own, and maintain housing in the City of Seattle.[2] In addition, the PD also intends to retrofit acquired properties to increase energy efficiency and bring them into compliance with accessibility standards.[3] Contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers may see this as an opportunity to compete for and build everything from new multi-unit housing to handrail installation projects. This post will explore some of the basics of contracting with a public corporation like the Public Developer and what contractors may want to consider in their business planning. What is the PD? The Public Developer is a political subdivision of the State of Washington, like a port or fire district.[4] The Public Developer is not an agency or department of the City of Seattle. In this way, it is like Seattle Public Schools (SPS) because both SPS and the PD operate within the City of Seattle, but have (or will have) their own staff, procurement rules, and standard contracts distinct from the City’s. Like SPS, the PD can also enter construction and supply contracts, sue, and be sued. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight