BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofing
    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


    Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

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

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    Governmental Immunity Waived for Independent Contractor - Lopez v. City of Grand Junction

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

    Roni Most, Esq., Reappointed as a City of Houston Associate Judge

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

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

    Assessments Underway After Hurricane Milton Rips Off Stadium Roof, Snaps Crane Boom in Florida

    Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace
    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

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    October 29, 2014 —
    This article responds to the article published in the September 18, 2014 issue of the Construction Defect Journal. It provides a different perspective to this issue, based on the author's experience with these matters during the past decade of attention to this specific challenge. During recent years, there has been much discussion about the lack of attached ownership housing construction in Colorado. The main culprit, according to several sources within the community, seems to be our state's construction defect laws. Since 2001, there has been a periodic series of legislative fixes to our construction defect laws that saw the pendulum swing back and forth between the interests of the consuming public who purchase the homes and certain protections of the developers and homebuilders from excessive and unnecessary litigation. Some say that the current state of the law is more onerous than necessary on the developers and homebuilders and it is artificially inhibiting the development of multifamily ownership housing in a time of high demand and low supply. A recent opinion article in the September 29th, 2014 issue of the Denver Post stated, in part:
    "No one is suggesting that developers escape liability for construction defects or that homeowners be denied the right to sue. But under the state's current defect laws, the scales have tilted too far in favor of litigation as the default tool for resolving disputes. And this appears to be the biggest reason for the collapse in the number of new multifamily [ownership] dwellings in recent years."
    Rather than the typical conflict between the plaintiffs’ bar (representing the homebuyer) and the homebuilding industry that has produced the "back-and-forth" nature of our construction defect laws in the past, this 2014 legislative session found new constituents and a different perspective on the issue. A broad ranging coalition that included the Metro Mayors Caucus, major segments of the affordable housing community, and the general business community came together to address what their research showed as an astonishing lack of construction of ownership attached housing. There was a continuing boom going on in the development of multifamily "rental" housing, but an even more unusual deficit in multifamily "ownership" housing. Research apparently showed that, although about 20% + of construction of attached housing was in the ownership format throughout the Rocky Mountain West, Colorado was only producing about 2%. Interviews conducted by the research group that was retained by this coalition revealed that the development and homebuilding community were not willing to commence construction of ownership attached housing because of the continuing threat of litigation available under current interpretations of our state's construction defect laws. Lenders were also reluctant to provide financing for such projects faced with the apparent real threat of litigation that could shut down their projects and materially impact their loan viability and the value of the loan's collateral. Moreover, insurance premiums to cover such claims were so high, and many times unavailable, as to make such projects unfeasible. This lack of available multifamily ownership housing was creating an ever-increasing concern over the resulting imbalance of housing options in and around the metro area, where the urban character of the metro region would need such ownership options in the attached housing format in order to address the more dense character of the urban setting. This imbalance of ownership attached housing was thwarting the advancement of "community" in the context of creating opportunities for all options of housing so important for a community balance. This included ownership options in this format that address the need for the younger professionals entering the workforce, newly forming households, seniors desiring to scale down their housing size and location, as well as the segment of the market who have limited means and need to address the affordability of homeownership. This was being most clearly felt along the FasTracks lines where attached ownership housing was an important element in originally advancing the TOD communities that are expected to be developed around these transit stops. Rather than engage the battle of creating more contention in the various aspect of construction defect legislation per se, this coalition attempted to temper their approach and address specific issues that seemed to advance protection of the consuming homeowner while, at the same time, advocating a method of dispute resolution encouraged in the state's laws regarding such issues. Normally, attached ownership housing is developed under our state laws governing the creation of Common Interest Communities ("CIC's"), including those communities where there are units that are attached and contain common elements. These CIC's will be encumbered by certain recorded documents (normally referred to as "Declarations") that structure the "community" within which the units are located and set up certain rules and restrictions that are intended to respect the common interests of the unit owners within that community. There is also a Homeowners Association ("HOA") organized for the common interest community that is charged with the management of the common elements and the enforcement of the rule and regulations governing the community. The coalition chose to address their concerns through a bill including a couple of changes in the state laws governing CIC's, which would provide further protection to the homeowner and advance alternative dispute resolution as an expedient approach to resolving disputes should they arise. Those changes included:
    1. Majority Owner Vote Re: Litigation -Rather than allowing two owners plus a vote of the HOA Board to determine whether or not to file litigation alleging construction defects in a CIC, the proposed change would require a simple majority vote of the unit owners who are members in the respective HOA where the alleged defect occurred. This approach addressed the increasing concern of unit owners whose homes are unmarketable and not financeable during the course of any such litigation. This does not prevent an aggrieved owner from pursuing claims regarding that person's own unit, it just requires a majority of the owners to vote for litigation that affects the entire CIC in such litigation. This approach also included a provision for advance notice to the owners of such pending litigation accompanied by several disclosures regarding the potential litigation and its potential impact on the respective owner. This approach to protecting the rights of homeowners in a CIC seemed to be in line with everyone's interests, while not preventing an individual consumer/unit owner to advance its own claims. 2. Alternative Dispute Resolution -This proposal clarified the stated intent of the CIC statutes that advances alternative dispute resolution by providing that any mandatory arbitration provisions that are already contained in the Declaration that encumbers the respective unit in a CIC shall not be changed or deleted without the permission of the Declarant (e.g.; the developer of the CIC). This provision was to affirm a provision that the purchasing unit owner was aware of at the time of purchase and that it follows the spirit and intent of the state statutes governing such CIC's.
    Notwithstanding the curative nature of these proposals, the legislation did not address the issue because a legislative maneuver was employed that did not allow for its consideration during the waning days of the session. More recently, one of Colorado's municipalities, the home rule city of Lakewood, passed a local ordinance addressing this issue in a similar fashion, with a few more definitive suggestions regarding how to alleviate the lopsided nature of our current state of law. Without going into detail at this time with that specific ordinance, or the issue of its ability to address matters of a state-wide concern at the local level, the point is that several of Colorado's local communities, frustrated with the inability of the state legislature to deal with the issue are, at the very least, sending a signal that something must be done and, if the state is unwilling to lead on this matter, local communities will have to act. This issue has not receded into the back room, and we will see a continuing crusade from an updated coalition to address these reasonable modifications to our state laws that will at least provide some protections to the CIC homeowner regarding unwanted litigation and some relief to the homebuilding industry from excessive litigation. James M. Mulligan is a partner in the Denver office of Snell & Wilmer, LLP, a full-service commercial law firm located in nine cities throughout the Western United States and in Mexico. The firm’s website is http://www.swlaw.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    July 09, 2014 —
    My husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends. En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery.” [Sign] No *Loitering*Littering*Alcoholic Beverages on Premises*Bike*Skateboard* *10 minutes Parking Limit*Towing Enforced* I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign. In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly. What does this have to do with your construction contracts? Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language. That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client. This can cause big problems. Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere. You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk. Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans? Promised to design to a specific LEED standard? Guaranteed 100% satisfaction? You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue. By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law. By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care. In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured. If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    March 28, 2018 —
    For years, the statute regarding performing construction without a valid license (Va. Code 54.1-1115) was a bit murky. While that statute listed several prohibited acts, among them contracting without the proper class of license or use of the license of another, the consequences of such activity, in particular the effect that such action would have on the enforcement of a construction contract (Section C of the statute), were less than clear. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    July 15, 2019 —
    Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that four attorneys in the Orange County and Los Angeles offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. Steffi Gascón Hafen, Estate Planning and Probate Hafen is a Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law, California Board of Legal Specialization. Her practice is concentrated in tax, trust, and estate matters with emphasis in estate planning, trust and probate administration, and estate and gift taxation. Irina Ling, Tax Ling's practice is concentrated in estate planning and taxation matters. She has experience assisting clients with all aspects of estate and tax planning, including advising clients on various charitable giving devices and business succession. Irina also assists clients with estate and gift tax issues, property tax issues, and probate and trust administration. Joshua Schneiderman, Mergers and Acquisitions Schneiderman advises clients on a wide range of transactional matters, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and public and private offerings of debt and equity securities. He advises clients on matters related to franchising, including the establishment of new franchise systems and the expansion of existing franchise systems nationally and internationally. Jeffrey Singletary, Business Litigation Singletary concentrates his practice on business litigation in state and federal courts. He represents clients in matters involving breach of contract, business competition torts, real estate, public and private construction projects, and various intellectual property litigation matters, including trademark, trade dress, trade secret and patent claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Spotting Problem Projects

    October 26, 2017 —
    Perhaps more than any other specialty contractor, electrical contractors bear the brunt of the “problem project.” Long after most other trades have completed their work and scattered in the wind, electrical contractors remain on site until the owner’s last inspection. And when the project is a “problem project,” the owner or prime contractor tend to liberally share their losses and liquidated damages among those specialty contractors remaining on site at the end. So what is an electrical contractor to do when the project starts coming off the rails? What is a Problem Project? First, it helps to identify the attributes of a problem project. While there are many negative qualities of a bad job, a problem project is one that busts budgets – whether labor, material, or time. Most commonly, the problem project will significantly exceed the labor budget. Because an electrical contractor’s most important (and understandably expensive) resource is its people, the labor budget is critical to the success of a job. When a project suffers delays or is ineptly managed, the labor costs soar, turning a potentially profitable job into a disaster. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    September 17, 2015 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. As noted below, in order to pursue this remedy, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    July 09, 2019 —
    The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019. Bills Becoming Law in 2019 HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019. This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond. (1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions: The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed; The materials furnished or to be furnished; The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due. A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage. (2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    May 12, 2016 —
    In Colorado, the “complaint rule” requires insurance carriers to provide a defense to its insured when the allegations contained in the complaint allege any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. Some insurers have pushed back on this rule arguing that it may cause an insurer to exercise its duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF 103-CV, LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 WL 6517782, the Tenth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals upheld the complaint rule. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit cited several Colorado state court rulings recognizing the courts’ intent to incentivize insurers to defend policies that may facially fall within the terms of the policy. Where there is uncertainty about coverage, the Tenth Circuit cited a Colorado Supreme Court case stating, “[t]he appropriate course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no obligation to defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under the reservation of its rights.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adria Robinson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Robinson may be contacted at robinson@hhmrlaw.com