BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

    Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Jae Lynn Huckaba, Awarded Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s Rookie of the Year 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

    New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

    October 10, 2022 —
    The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council recently published a proposed ruled that, once implemented, will require the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction projects with a contract value of $35 million or greater. The proposed rule revokes President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 and implements an Executive Order 14063 (E.O. 14063) issued on February 9, 2022. E.O. 14063 addresses the use of PLAs in the government contracts. Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the use of PLAs on “large-scale construction projects” is discretionary. The new rule proposed by the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) revises the FAR contract clauses making the use of PLAs mandatory. Under the proposed rule, contractors performing “large-scale construction projects” will be required to “negotiate or become a party to a [PLA] with one or more appropriate labor organizations.” FAR 52.222-33. A PLA is in essence a collective bargaining agreement between a local trade union and contractor that governs employment terms, including wages and benefits, for union and non-union workers. Although the PLA mandate only applies to large-scale construction projects with the contract value of $35 million and more, under the proposed rule, agencies have the option to include the PLA requirement for construction projects that are under the $35 million threshold. The proposed rule also sets out a flow-down requirement, which means that subcontractors working on a large-scale project must likewise be familiar with and comply with terms of the PLA negotiated by a prime contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Reggie Jones, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@foxrothschild.com

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    September 02, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    October 26, 2020 —
    Would you believe me if I told you that this year could have been worse for builders? Had COVID-19 not hit, the Colorado Legislature may have passed bills that would have had a severely negative impact on the home building industry. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature temporarily adjourned in mid-March, 67 days into the 120-day legislative session. After a two-month recess, the Legislature returned for approximately one month to pass critical bills including the state budget, the school finance act and what to do with the money from the federal CARES Act. Of the bills on the calendar when the Legislature temporarily adjourned, legislators focused on those that were “fast, free, and friendly,” and let the others fall by the wayside. Bills that died included SB 20-138, which would have extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims from six plus two years to 10 plus two years. The bill also contained a number of accrual and tolling provisions, which would have made it harder for builders to convince tribunals that claims were untimely. This bill died on the Senate floor, for lack of support. We will see whether plaintiffs’ attorneys will revive this effort next year. SB 20-093, while not an outright ban on arbitration or a legislative overturning of the Vallagio decision, would have made it harder to administer and more difficult to get cases into arbitration. The bill died under the “fast, free, and friendly” test, i.e., it faced too much opposition. I expect to see this bill again next year, in some form. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

    August 16, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized. In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    February 05, 2015 —
    According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, 63 (out of 351) US metropolitan areas have returned to or exceeded their last normal level of housing and economic health—that’s up from 60 last quarter. NAHB reported that “The Leading Markets Index measures a market’s proximity to normal as defined by the level of single-family housing permits, home prices and employment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    In Pennsylvania, Contractors Can Be Liable to Third Parties for Obvious Defects in Completed Work

    July 10, 2023 —
    In Brown v. City of Oil City, No. 6 WAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 681 (2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) recently held that a contractor can be liable for dangerous conditions it creates even if the hazard is obvious or known by the property owner. In City of Oil City, the City of Oil City (Oil City) contracted with Harold Best and Struxures, LLC and Fred Burns, Inc. (collectively Contractors) to reconstruct the concrete stairs to the city library. Contractors completed their work at the end of 2011. In early 2012, Oil City received reports of issues with the stairs. Oil City notified Contractors that it considered the stairs dangerous and that Contractors’ defective workmanship created the condition. Neither Oil City or Contractors took any action to fix the stairs or warn of the danger and the stairs’ condition worsened with time. On November 23, 2015, David and Kathryn Brown exited the library. Kathryn Brown tripped on one of the deteriorated steps, falling and striking her head. Kathryn suffered a traumatic head injury and passed away six days later. The Estate of Kathryn Brown and David Brown, individually (collectively, the Browns), sued Oil City as the owner of the library and Contractors. With respect to Contractors, the Browns asserted that Contractors’ work on the stairs created a dangerous condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the steps. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    August 26, 2015 —
    Home prices in 20 U.S. cities climbed 5 percent in June from the same month a year earlier, a sign of more progress in the housing market. The increase in the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values matched the year-over-year gains in the prior three months, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 5.1 percent year-over-year advance. Nationally, prices rose 4.5 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    July 16, 2023 —
    In certain matters, there is an affirmative defense referred to as the “voluntary payments” defense. This defense states, “where one makes a payment of any sum under a claim of right with knowledge of the facts such a payment is voluntary and cannot be recovered.” Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1272c (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) quoting City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So.2d 547, 551 (Fla. 1959). This voluntary payments defense could be construed as a “gotcha” defense, right? Unfair! You voluntarily made the payment with knowledge of the facts; therefore, you are s**t out of luck when it comes to recovering the potentially wrongful payment. Well, guess what? This voluntary payments affirmative defense does NOT apply in contract disputes. This is codified by Florida Statute s. 725.04 which states: “When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.” Fla.Stat. s. 725.04. See also Avatar Properties, supra (explaining voluntary payment defense does not apply in contract cases and even in non-contract cases it doesn’t apply if payment made under coercion or compulsion). 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