BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultant
    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


    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    National Coalition to Provide Boost for Building Performance Standards

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

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

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Construction Up in United States

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

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

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim
    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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “D’Oh!”

    August 12, 2024 —
    The U.S. DOL found itself on June 24 on the wrong end of a preliminary injunction concerning recent changes to the Davis-Bacon Act. The lawsuit, initiated in Texas federal court by the Associated General Contractors of America and other concerned citizens, sought a preliminary injunction barring implementation and enforcement of “specified portions of § 5.2 and § 5.5(e) of the DOL’s ‘Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations’” – the “Final Rule,” published August 23, 2023. After determining the appropriateness of the “standing” of the plaintiffs based upon the plaintiffs being “adversely affected” by the Final Rule, the federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule. In noting its disagreement with the Final Rule, the court stated:
    “… the Final Rule amends the DBA [the Davis-Bacon Act] by imposing a stealth selfimplementing DBA requirement in the contract by an operation-of-law provision that contradicts the express statutory language of the Act [the court bristling at the idea that contracts might exclude with impunity the otherwise mandated DBA clauses]. Further, the Final Rule amends the Act to extend the DBA to apply to workers who are not mechanics and laborers, and to extend the scope of the work covered by DBA to include work is not performed ‘directly on the site of the work.’
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

    February 27, 2019 —
    On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. 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

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    October 29, 2014 —
    The federal district court granted the insured's motion to stay the coverage action while the construction defect case was pending in state court. Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Essex Homes Southeast, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133120 (D. S.C., Sept. 23, 2014). The homeowners sued Essex Homes in state court for construction defects in a home built and sold to them by Essex Homes. The suit sought damages for property damage based on negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranties arising out of the alleged construction defects. The complaint alleged that a water leak in the house caused water damage and resulted in mold growth that was not discovered for several years. 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

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    July 05, 2023 —
    Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present. Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained. Reprinted courtesy of Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    February 20, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta obtained summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the owner of a premises located in Bronx, New York, in a personal injury case brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Plaintiff alleged that while leaving the Defendant’s premises, she unexpectedly fell. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff does not know why she fell or identify any defect that may have caused her fall. The Defendant’s witness testified that the route taken by the Plaintiff was free of any defect prior to and on the date of the incident. The witness further testified that the site was also subject to routine inspection leading up to the incident, in which no tripping hazards were observed. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Christopher D. Acosta, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Acosta may be contacted at cacosta@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    September 24, 2014 —
    According to the Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP blog on Construction Law, even though the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (NRS) Chapter 40 requires a general contractor “to provide pre-litigation notice (followed by an opportunity to repair) to a subcontractor or supplier the general contractor believes to be responsible” for the issue prior to filing suit, the Nevada Supreme Court “determined that NRS Chapter 40 imposes no such requirement upon a subcontractor.” In Barrett v. Eighth Judicial District Court, “the court reasoned that ‘while the statutes’ and, indeed, chapter’s purpose is, in part, to allow defendants an initial opportunity to repair, the Legislature chose to carry out that purpose in the manner provided by the statutes, and [the Supreme Court] will not read into the statutes a notice requirement between a subcontractor and another subcontractor or supplier where none exist.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    April 13, 2017 —
    Ever wonder what happens if a person challenges the timeliness of a trustee’s sale after the sale already occurred? Waiver of the argument of course! And, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Waltner, the affirmance of an eviction judgment. In the Waltner case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-PR4 Trust (the “Bank”), purchased a residential property at a trustee’s sale in September 2015. The Bank gave the occupant of the house, Sarah Waltner (“Waltner”), notice to vacate the property, but she did not do so. Accordingly, the Bank filed a summary action to evict Waltner, which the trial court ultimately granted. After the trial court granted the Bank relief, Waltner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to vacate the eviction judgment arguing, among other things, that the judgment was void because the Bank conducted the trustee’s sale after the statute of limitations expired. Both motions were denied, and Waltner appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    February 10, 2014 —
    The city of Norristown, Pennsylvania has already paid “$3.4 million for construction repairs and legal expenses” for the 26-unit condominium on 770 Sandy Street, according to The Times Herald. Therefore city officials recently declared that “they will no longer pay the $40,000 annual cost for maintenance, electricity and repairs” for the building. “At some point, the folks that own it have to step up and take responsibility for it,” Norristown Council President William Caldwell told The Times Herald. “No later than February 28, the municipality will cease to provide or pay for maintenance of 770 Sandy Street.” Previously, Norristown had received court orders to repair the building, after numerous construction defects turned up including “missing firestops in numerous walls, missing grout and steel rebar in block-wall, emergency stair towers, faulty electrical wiring and no provision for firestopping in the first-floor garage ceiling.” City officials “were faulted by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judges for not properly inspecting the construction.” Charles Madracchia, past Customers Bank attorney and current Homeowner attorney, is “continuing active litigation in both federal and state court.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of