BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield 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


    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times

    'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    More on the VCPA and Construction

    Recording a Lis Pendens Is Crucial

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

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

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

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform
    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’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    November 14, 2018 —
    In Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently concluded that the date on which the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., is the date on which the plaintiff commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect statute of repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, reversing the decision of the trial court, the Fourth District held that the plaintiffs timely-filed their construction defect action against the defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    June 21, 2017 —
    Construction and design professionals in Nevada’s home building industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on June 5, 2017 when the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned without entertaining Senate Bill 250, which sought to reinstate homeowner plaintiffs’ nearly automatic right to recover attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation when bringing suit for alleged constructional defects. Until 2015, homeowners’ recovery of such damages was the reality of the construction defect landscape in Nevada. While Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes specifically allowed for recovery of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation, the trend in Nevada was that plaintiffs were all but guaranteed awards of all such sums. Of course, this environment incentivized plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring claims of questionable or little repair value in cases where the attorney’s fees and expert costs often far exceeded the costs of repair. HOW AB125 CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE Such was the reality in Nevada until 2015 and the passage of Assembly Bill 125, which eliminated the nearly automatic award of attorneys’ fees and expert costs and overhauled Chapter 40 in many other respects. AB125 made over portions of Chapter 40 by:
    • Placing awards of attorneys’ fees into the framework of offers of judgment, utilized extensively in other fields of civil litigation and available equally to homeowner plaintiffs as well as construction industry defendants; and
    • Reworking expert costs and costs of investigation to allow for the award of those items only in the case of proven defects and only as to those costs directly related to the investigation and proof of those defects.
    INTRODUCING SB250 The 2017 Legislative Session saw efforts to return Chapter 40 to its pre-2015 version through the introduction of SB250. Fortunately for construction and design professionals in the home building industry in Nevada, the State Senate Judiciary Committee did not act upon the bill and the effort died having never made it to a floor vote. Considering that Nevada’s Legislature meets biannually, the current framework of Chapter 40 is intact until at least 2019. The 2017 Legislative Session, however, is an illustration to how quickly those of the construction defect plaintiffs’ bar can move to initiate efforts to turn back the clock to a much riskier time for construction and design professionals. Those in the industry should remain vigilant and monitor future legislative efforts to reinstate such awards or other clearly anti-builder measures. Such measures simply drive-up the overall cost and expense of home construction and, in turn, home ownership, which it is often said, is one of the cornerstones of the American dream. Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Aaron has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He can be reached at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    May 11, 2020 —
    I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    November 11, 2024 —
    Deadlines are an inescapable part of the construction industry. Bid deadlines. Submittal deadlines. Material delivery deadlines. Substantial completion. Final completion. And so, inevitably, fighting about deadlines becomes a necessary byproduct. Was the deadline really a deadline? Was the schedule slippage on the critical path? Should there be an equitable extension to the date of substantial completion? Given the amount of attention and concern conferred on deadlines, those drafting construction contracts naturally seek to clarify which deadlines really matter with the inclusion of notice and timing provisions. A contract’s change order and claims procedures are often a key friction point for those drafting and administering the contract. Should there be a requirement for prior written notice of a claim for cost/time relief? How much advance notice? Who should the request be sent to? Is a specific form of notice required? What are the consequences of failing to provide timely notice? A practitioner should pay careful attention to negotiating these terms on the front end, because rest assured, these contract provisions will garner scrutiny when a change order dispute boils over. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com

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

    December 01, 2017 —
    The Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) can and often does apply to residential construction. The transaction between a residential contractor and an homeowner has been held to fall under the consumer transaction language of the VCPA and on occasion been used to avoid the issues with the economic loss doctrine in Virginia. However, there are limits to how far down the contractual chain the VCPA applies, particularly in the case where a supplier or subcontractor does not provide the services or materials for a personal, consumer purpose. An example of this fact is found in the case of Johnston v. Stephan. In that case, a couple hired a general contractor to build a home and the general contractor hired Cole Roofing System, Inc. to provide the roof of the home. The first couple subsequently sold the home and the second homeowners sought further work on the roof from Cole Roofing. After Cole Roofing refused further work, the homeowners brought an action seeking to enforce a warranty and for a violation of the VCPA. For the warranty claim, the homeowners relied on the contract between them and the prior homeowners that referenced a 10 year warranty on the roof and the subcontract between the homebuilder and Cole Roofing. Cole Roofing sought dismissal of the VCPA and warranty claims by demurrer and further sought by demurrer to have the matter dismissed as being filed after the running of the statute of limitations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

    July 11, 2021 —
    Another building block for infrastructure legislation has moved into place with the House’s approval of a five-year $715-billion surface transportation and water infrastructure package. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    September 29, 2021 —
    The condo board at one of New York’s tallest and toniest towers sued the building’s developers, claiming design flaws are to blame for flooding, stuck elevators and “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibration.” The residential tower at 432 Park Avenue is a 1,396-foot skyscraper overlooking Central Park that was opened in 2015 on the city’s so-called Billionaire Row. The condo board claims its engineering consultant has identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects — “many of which are described as life safety issues.” The board that represents the condo owners sued the developers, CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, and the company, also known as sponsor, that the developers formed to build the tower. The board is seeking $250 million, plus punitive damages, in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

    New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction

    April 05, 2021 —
    New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect. Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of