BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction 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


    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    Construction Defect Lawsuits Hinted for Dublin, California

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale
    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

    Key Legal Issues to Consider Before and After Natural Disasters

    November 25, 2024 —
    While legal considerations are often the last thing on the minds of project owners and contractors during an emergency, construction industry stakeholders should bear in mind the impact of natural disasters on their legal rights, remedies and potential exposure to claims. For all stakeholders, two of the most pressing considerations are: (1) what provisions in their contracts are impacted by a natural disaster and (2) do they have any potential exposure to price-gouging claims? Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Kelly, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Kelly may be contacted at pkelly@grayreed.com

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    May 24, 2018 —
    Every few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1] The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    May 08, 2023 —
    In United States Automatic Sprinkler Corporation v. Erie Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 2SS-CT-264, 2023 Ind. LEXIS 105, the Supreme Court of Indiana (Supreme Court) reversed an order of the trial court that denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a sprinkler contractor. At issue was whether commercial tenants – one who contracted with the sprinkler contractor and others who did not – could recover for their respective property damages. The court held that under the contract’s subrogation waiver and agreement to insure, the contracting tenant waived its insurer’s rights to recover through subrogation. With respect to the non-contracting tenants, who sought to recover only property damages, the court held that the absence of contractual privity barred their recovery. The case centered around a sprinkler system that malfunctioned and flooded the Sycamore Springs Office Complex (Landlord), causing extensive property damage to four commercial tenants. Surgery Center, one of the four tenants, requested permission from the Landlord to install a sprinkler system inside the building. Landlord agreed, in exchange for Surgery Center agreeing to be solely responsible for maintaining the sprinkler system. Surgery Center hired United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) to both install and conduct periodic inspection and testing of the sprinkler system. The contract terms outlined the scope of work to be performed by Automatic Sprinkler and the work was limited to the inspection and testing of the sprinkler system. Although repairs and emergency services were excluded from the contract, each could be performed upon the request and authorization of Surgery Center for an additional cost. The contract also contained certain risk allocation provisions including a waiver of subrogation and an agreement to insure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    May 26, 2011 —

    On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.

    The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    November 21, 2018 —
    Recent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    August 27, 2013 —
    Over the last fifty years, the number of lawsuits that have been settled by trial have dropped sharply, according to Kenneth Childs, writing in the Idaho Business Review. Childs notes that in 1962, 11.5% of federal civil cases were resolved at trial, but in 2002, only 1.8 % percent went to trial. He makes the supposition that, due to their complexity, construction defect trials are even less likely to be resolved at trial. Instead, they are being resolved in mandatory arbitration. Views on arbitration have changed over the years and the courts have gone from what he describes as “somewhat hostile to it” to embracing, encouraging, and even mandating it. Childs notes there are some problems to this climate of arbitration. He notes that arbitrators can “operate by their own rules and according to their own standards.” The decisions made by arbitrators “are not subject to appellate review,” which allows arbitrators “to ignore the law entirely.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    December 20, 2012 —
    Grund Dagner, a law firm operating in Denver and Boulder, Colorado notes on their blog that when defending a construction defect claim, one of their first steps is to determine if the claims are affected by the statutes of limitations or repose, and that they “have had much success raising these defenses with the court before trial.” Colorado has a two-year statute of limitations, starting from when the homeowner discovers the defect. Further, Colorado’s statute of repose precludes lawsuits beginning “more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property.” Grund Dagner notes that they “recently obtained dismissal of claims related to eight of 22 buildings in a condominium project, where the homeowners in those building observed the defects more than two years before the HOA initiated its claims against our client.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?

    March 11, 2024 —
    Remember BAE Systems and Fluor? This post is the third here at Construction Law Musings relating to this case which is a seemingly never-ending source for content. In the prior post discussing this case, the Court found that Va. Code 1-4.1:1 which bars waiver of a right to payment before work is performed did not apply because Fluor had provided work before execution of the contract or any change orders. In the most recent opinion in this long-running litigation, and after a motion to reconsider by Fluor that was granted, the Court re-examined this finding along with the contractual language found in the Limitation of Damages (LOD) clause and came to the opposite conclusion regarding certain change orders that remained unpaid by BAE. The Court first looked to the language of the contract itself and specifically the language in the LOD provision that states “Except as otherwise provided in this Subcontract.” The Court then looked at the change order provision and its typical equitable adjustment language and the mandatory nature of the equitable adjustment language. The Court found that the LOD provisions did not apply to change orders both because price increases due to change orders are not “damages” and because of the exception language in the LOD provision itself. 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