BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    Digitalizing Cross-Laminated Timber Construction

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Does the Recording of a Mechanic’s Lien Memorandum by Itself Constitute Process? Read to Find Out

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Iowa Tornado Flattens Homes, Businesses and Wind Turbines

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?
    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

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    July 01, 2019 —
    On April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings. Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.” The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
    “I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
    Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com

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

    July 02, 2024 —
    Partners Yvette Davis and Beth Obra-White have been named co-chairs for the firm’s Construction Law Practice Group. Yvette, Beth and other diverse leaders within the firm play an integral role in the firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion initiatives. Congratulations to Yvette & Beth for their new roles as practice group leaders! Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    July 18, 2022 —
    Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    June 15, 2017 —
    A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    September 24, 2013 —
    Despite the assurances of their engineering firm, the township of Old Bridge, New Jersey has yet to release the performance bond to the construction of Plaza Grande, a condominium complex for residents over 55. One resident summarized the problem for the Suburban, a newspaper for towns in the area. “Our major concern is a sinkhole near Building 4 that has come back several times.” D.R. Horton, the developer on the project, has dug out the sinkhole, then backfilled and compacted it. However , one member of the Old Bridge Township Council said that she noticed that the area was beginning to sink again. The council member, Mary Sohor, said that Horton “should’ve dug a little deeper and did a little more.” D.R. Horton said that the issues do not affect the safety of the residents and attribute them to seasonal wear and tear. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    February 28, 2022 —
    In a recent case decided by Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC v. Headwaters Development Group LLC,[1] the court held that parties to an arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate related claims with non-parties to the agreement based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The case involved six joint venture agreements to develop three separate properties in Spokane, two joint venture agreements per property. One entity, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC (“DTI”), owned by David Terry, was a partner in each of the six joint venture agreements. DTI joint ventured with S.G. Spady Consulting (“SGSC”) and with Headwaters Development Group LLC (“HDG”) separately for each of the three properties. HDG owned the three properties, and SGSC was to provide construction management advice. Steve Spady was the principal of both HDG and SGSC. Stoneridge was a licensed general contractor, the principal of which was also Steve Spady. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at paul.cressman@acslawyers.com

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    March 16, 2017 —
    In a case that has been widely discussed on this blog, a United States federal district court Judge denied the Philadelphia Carpenters’ Union’s motion to dismiss a federal RICO case filed against it by the Pennsylvania Convention Center. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro issued the ruling on the Union’s motion. Unfortunately, Judge Quinoses Alejandro did not issue an opinion to go along with her order. This is a bit unusual. Federal Judges routinely issue opinions (if only in footnote form) even on motion dealing with procedural issues. like discovery disputes. The lack of an opinion prevents us from knowing the Judge’s rationale for denying the motion. Therefore, the order lack precedental value for subsequent cases. However, I do not believe the order is any less significant. Potential plaintiffs now know that a federal RICO case against a union can survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the attorneys for the Convention Center have provided potential plaintiffs a road map for doing so. As I have stated before, the fact pattern in the Convention case is hardly unique and the tactics the Carpenters used in that case are de ri·gueur. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

    November 11, 2024 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after the jury determined there was no coverage for a leaking pipe. Mendoza v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. EXIS 5477 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2024). The Mendoza's third amended complaint alleged their home was damaged "by overflow of water from the dwelling's plumbing system resulting from a broken pipe, which overflow undermined the structural integrity of the dwelling." The Mendozas insured their home under a policy issued by Pacific. The policy insured the property against "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" except where expressly excluded. The Mendozas submitted a claim Pacific paid approximately $1800 for the loss and closed the claim. The amount paid did not include payment for any structural damage to the home. The Mendozas alleged that Pacific's failure to conduct a full and fair investigation into the structural damage and its inadequate payment of benefits was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com