BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture 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


    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    How A Contractor Saved The Day On A Troubled Florida Condo Project

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense by U.S. News/Best Lawyers

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    Nondelegable Duties

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks
    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. Drawing 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

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    October 28, 2011 —

    Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

    Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

    Read the full story...

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    October 07, 2024 —
    If you have used a ConsensusDocs® construction agreement or another industry association construction agreement for one of your projects, you are accustomed to seeing the laws of the state where the construction project is located as the governing law. There are good reasons for the laws of the state where the project is located to govern the construction agreement for the project. Even if not headquartered in the state, the parties have a presence there by virtue of their participation in the project in the state. Personnel and records that may be needed to resolve a claim may be located in the state. If there are experts that need to be engaged, they will likely need to visit the site. These reasons of efficiency and convenience, alone, may justify the parties’ decision to select the project state’s laws to govern their construction contract. However, there is also the policy interest of the project state, whose laws may even mandate that the project state’s laws govern construction contracts for in-state projects and that the parties resolve their disputes in state as well. Several states have laws that require construction disputes for projects in the state to be resolved under its laws and/or litigated or arbitrated in the state. Some states require only that its laws govern and do not also require that the dispute resolution take place in the state, but some require both – that its laws govern and the disputes be resolved there. There may be different triggers as to when the statute applies. For example, in some states, the statute applies to any construction contract for a project in the state. In others, the law may only be triggered if one of the parties is domiciled in the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Davies, Jones Walker LLP
    Ms. Davies may be contacted at vdavies@joneswalker.com

    Behavioral Science Meets Construction: Insights from Whistle Rewards

    September 09, 2024 —
    In this episode of the AEC Business Podcast, Aarni Heiskanen hosts Drew Carter, CEO of Whistle Rewards, and Dr. Laurel Newman, a behavioral scientist, to discuss instant rewards for driving behavioral change in construction. Laurel shares her psychology background and academic career, studying how the environment influences behavior. Drew introduces himself as a data scientist, focusing on predictive modeling. Tune in to learn how they collaborate to create motivating environments in the construction industry. Whistle Rewards is a platform specializing in rewards, recognition, and incentives in the AEC industry. It is designed to enhance employee engagement, safety compliance, performance, and technology adoption in construction companies. The Guests Drew Carter, CEO and Co-Founder at Whistle Systems, Inc. Drew is improving employee retention using data science and behavioral science. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    May 19, 2014 —
    The National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) jointly “released the National Healthy Housing Standard, which provides recommendations for the maintenance and condition of occupied dwellings,” reported Big Builder. According to Big Builder, “The standard's provisions aim to fill gaps where there are no property maintenance policies and to complement the International Property Maintenance Code and other federal, state, and local policies in place regarding the upkeep of existing homes.” Some of the recommendations included room access to daylight, no or low-VOC building materials, and water management. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    July 01, 2019 —
    Can an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work? Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long. The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230. The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    January 21, 2025 —
    Newark, N.J. (December 31, 2024) - Days after obtaining an Appellate Division victory affirming a “no cause” jury verdict, Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett obtained a second appellate court victory affirming a trial court's dismissal of a complaint against another firm client, a general contractor. The team had previously obtained summary judgment at the trial level on the grounds plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case against the client. The plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal of her claim to the Appellate Division. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    August 17, 2017 —
    Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Chambers USA Names Peckar & Abramson to Band 1 Level in Construction Law; 29 P&A Lawyers Recognized as Leading Attorneys; Six Regions and Government Contracts Practice Recognized

    July 08, 2024 —
    Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized the firm at the Band 1 level nationwide in Construction Law. P&A stands alone in being named a Band 1 firm in Construction Law nationally and has been named in the position every year since Chambers USA began awarding the recognition. The firm was also recognized nationally in Government Contracts: Highly Regarded. P&A’s offices in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas were ranked Band 1 in Construction Law, and the Firm’s California, Illinois, and Washington, DC practices were also highly rated. Additionally, 29 of P&A’s construction lawyers were named leading construction lawyers in their respective jurisdictions – more than any other construction law practice in the country. As demonstrated by its consistent Chambers USA Rankings, Peckar & Abramson has earned a national reputation for exceptional legal advocacy, representing construction industry members domestically and internationally. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.