BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    Solutions To 4 Common Law Firm Diversity Challenges

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Challenging Enforceability of Liquidated Damages (In Federal Construction Context)

    Renovate or Demolish Milwaukee’s Historic City Hall?

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    Scientists Are Trying to Make California Forests More Fire Resilient

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

    Deferred Maintenance?

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

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

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    2017 California Employment Law Update

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    12 Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    A New Digital Twin for an Existing Bridge

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Considerations for Optimizing Dispute Resolution Clauses
    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

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    October 21, 2015 —
    The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied a defense for a construction defect claim. Steel Supply & Eng'g Co. v. Illinois Nat'. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015). Steel Supply contracted with the Carmel Redevelopment Corporation to fabricate and erect steel for a construction project in Carmel, Indiana. After the steel was erected, an iron worker at the site discovered defects in the steel. Subsequent investigations revealed additional defects. Carmel filed suit against Steel Supply for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that a critical connection that Steel Supply designed was inadequate to handle the forces coming onto it. Carmel claimed that the immediate need to remediate the steel damaged Carmel directly, and that other contractors sought damages from Carmel for harm caused by the delays. 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

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

    May 24, 2021 —
    Practical ideas aren’t often the stuff of architecture contests. Right off the bat, that set Los Angeles’s Low-Rise design challenge apart. A project led by the mayor’s office and the city’s chief design officer, Christopher Hawthorne, Low-Rise asked entrants to reimagine what an L.A. urban landscape with abundant housing could look like in the years to come. The organizers wanted the participating designers to think about their submissions the way they might approach a project for a local client or community. The results, which were unveiled this week, don’t look like future-forward science fiction, but rather doable local solutions to a thorny problem: the stubborn lack of affordable options across the city. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    November 20, 2013 —
    Douglas and Brenda Hess bought a manufactured home from Freedom Homes. Freedom Homes also hired workers to construct the basement and foundation, as well as install the home. Now the Hesses are claiming that the due to the installers, their home was damaged and that they cannot use it. They claim that the defendants refuse to repair the damage, and also claim a variety of things including negligence, frustration of purpose, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    May 10, 2017 —
    What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

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

    November 16, 2020 —
    On September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    May 10, 2017 —
    A company owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has abandoned plans to buy a sprawling industrial site in New Jersey from Honeywell International Inc., a major federal contractor, and develop it into a residential community. Kushner Cos. had been the leading bidder for the 95-acre formerly contaminated site known as Bayfront, which is co-owned by Honeywell and Jersey City, city officials said. The company had submitted plans to build as many as 8,100 housing units to be marketed to Orthodox Jewish residents of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn who are being priced out of that neighborhood. Last fall, the Kushners bid about $150 million, tens of millions higher than competitors, according to people involved in the negotiations. Honeywell heard from others who would only make an offer once the environmental approvals for the cleaned-up site were final. So the bidding is scheduled to reopen later this year and Kushner Cos. had been expected to continue in the process, the people said. But on Tuesday, when Bloomberg News asked about Bayfront, company spokesman James Yolles said the Kushners are no longer pursuing the project. He wouldn’t elaborate or explain. Reprinted courtesy of David Kocieniewski, Bloomberg and Caleb Melby, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    October 21, 2019 —
    One of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows: After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    December 11, 2018 —
    Microscopic nanoparticles are part of the mix in nearly 600 construction products. The particles add strength, durability and other desired characteristics. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com