BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    Boots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction Clients

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    Does “Faulty Workmanship” Constitute An Occurrence Under Your CGL Policy?

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

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

    Kahana Feld Partner Jeff Miragliotta and Senior Associate Rachael Marvin Obtain Early Dismissal of Commercial Litigation Cases in New York and New Jersey

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio

    Power to the Office Worker

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Congratulations to Partner Nicole Whyte on Receiving the Marcus M. Kaufman Jurisprudence Award

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Managing Narrative, Capturing Context, and Building Together: Talking VR and AEC with David Weir-McCall

    Orchestrating Bias: Arbitrator’s Undisclosed Membership in Philharmonic Group with Pauly Shore’s Attorney Not Grounds to Reverse Award in Real Estate Dispute

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    Falling Tree Causing Three Injuries/Deaths Is One Occurrence

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    Insurance and Your Roof

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    December 09, 2019 —
    Any general contractor understands the range of factors that go into building and sustaining a successful jobsite: hiring the right team, maintaining cutting-edge equipment, ensuring constant communication with clients and effectively leveraging the newest building technologies, just to name a few. But any good general contractor understands that there is one factor that should always be considered as top priority: jobsite safety. The health and wellbeing of a project’s team is paramount for obvious reasons, and it isn’t a lighthearted matter. Injuries and fatalities have too often been a piece of our industry’s story. In 2017 alone, there were 971 reported deaths on construction sites, which accounted for 20% of total worker fatalities, according to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of these 971 fatalities, 582 were the result of construction’s “fatal four”—falls, workers being struck by objects, electrocutions and workers being caught between equipment. For members of the industry, these are difficult numbers to read and to process; yet, it is extremely important to consider the injuries and lives lost when we take into consideration the seriousness of jobsite safety. Often, general contractors’ and superintendents’ greatest challenge isn’t being convinced of the necessity of jobsite safety practices in protecting employees or the value of safety in creating a productive work environment. Instead, the focus should be providing industry leaders tips on exactly how to improve safety measures on their own jobsites. Understanding that safety is everyone’s responsibility is paramount. Reprinted courtesy of Ray Reese, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Reese may be contacted at rreese@rives.com

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    July 06, 2020 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    August 30, 2021 —
    Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that is a creature of contract. If you want an arbitrator to resolve your disputes, you need to ensure there is an arbitration provision in your contract. There are pros and cons to arbitration. One con is you lose the right to appeal. A couple of pros, however, are that your arbitrator(s), which you generally have some control in the selection of, will be versed in the construction industry and it can be a more efficient forum to resolve disputes in the times of COVID. Once you have your scheduling conference with the appointed arbitrator(s), you will be able to agree upon a set final hearing (trial) time and have milestone dates that work backwards from the final hearing date. This is much more efficient than being placed on an unrealistic trial docket or having to deal with the gamesmanship of motions just to be able to get your case at-issue for trial. However, the right to arbitrate your dispute can be waived. This was the issue in Leder v. Imburgia Construction Services, Inc., 2021 WL 3177338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), which I will be the first to tell you the ruling is quite baffling to me. In a nutshell, the contractor, by not complying with the submission of a claim to the Initial Decision Maker was found to have waived the dispute resolution provision in the AIA contract. Not sure this makes sense, but this was the ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Las Vegas Sphere Lawsuits Roll On in Nevada Courtrooms

    October 02, 2023 —
    Big concerts have yet to start at Las Vegas’ distinctive new ball-shaped entertainment venue, but the legal noise over its construction has been heard in Clark County courtrooms for more than two years. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?

    January 11, 2022 —
    Welcome to 2022! This year, the construction industry will undoubtedly reflect on the last two years as unprecedented times plagued by construction project delays. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to suspension of work and closure of construction projects worldwide in 2020. The end of 2021 brought additional delays caused by an inexplicable clog in the supply chain of construction materials. The combined impact of these events on project milestones and completion deadlines led our clients to ask, with unusual and particular urgency, who is liable for such delays and how do contracting parties lessen the consequences from such unexpected and uncontrollable delays. Granted that project delays are nothing new or unusual. They were common enough before inflation caused shipping complications and pandemic decimated the construction labor force. All delays, whatever the source, variably cause loss to all players on a construction project. But not all delays matter when it comes to claims and remedies available to the contracting parties in dispute resolution, where the determinative focus is on material delays impacting the entire project and on delays the claimant can credibly prove. Most, if not all, jurisdictions interpret actionable delays from the contract documents for the project. The contract is definitely where you should start before pursuing any delay remedies. Delay remedies may be a time extension only, or a time extension plus your additional general conditions. Some delay remedies may be barred by the contract’s express terms and may be enforced adversely by the courts when such contract terms are indisputable. See Quinn Constr. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 401, 411 (D.C. Pa. 2010) (enforcing the subcontractor’s contractual waiver of claims for delay and disruption damages). On the other hand, delay damages that are expressly allowed by the contract—like overtime necessitated by the delays—are usually actionable and recoverable. Id. However, not only the contract terms, but applicable law, may affect the outcome. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    January 06, 2016 —
    Ouch. That’s what a court called a contract to remediate petroleum contamination at a number of gas stations in New York. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe the contracts that get signed. Environmental Risk hired Science Applications to remediate petroleum contamination at 47 gas stations. Environmental Risk had previously entered into a Professional Services Master Agreement with Science Applications, but also required Science Applications to sign three separate, but basically identical, subcontracts called the Project Specific Scopes of Work. So, right from the start, there were four contracts that could apply to Science Applications’ work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

    August 16, 2021 —
    The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects. In the next case, Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act. The Smart Corners Case In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    November 03, 2016 —
    In a public works dispute in Massachusetts, a Massachusetts Court judge ruled that a general contractor could not recover any of its over $14 million claim against a public owner because it had violated its contract with the Owner by certifying that it had paid its subcontractors in full and on time when in fact it had not.[i] The case involves a contract dispute arising from a state and federally-funded project to design and construct a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts. The Owner was a state development agency established and organized to receive both state and federal funding to build a 1,200–mile fiber optic network known as MassBroadband123 in Western Massachusetts (the Project). Of that amount, $45.4 million was awarded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). One of the stated goals of ARRA was (as its title suggests) to create jobs in the wake of the 2008 recession and to provide a direct financial boost to those impacted by the economic crisis. In the context of the instant case, that meant that, if there were to be subcontractors on the job providing labor and materials, they needed to be paid on a timely basis in keeping with the statutory purpose of stimulating the economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki James Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com