BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Supreme Court Upholds Prevailing Wage Statute

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    In Search of Cement Replacements

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

    West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    Some Coastal Cities Are Sinking Even Faster Than Seas Are Rising

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues
    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

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    March 28, 2018 —
    In a recent victory in their home state of Connecticut, Saxe Doernberger & Vita partners, Jeffrey Vita and Theresa Guertin, representing owner-developer 777 Main Street, LLC, overcame a summary judgment motion filed by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The Connecticut Superior court refused to adopt the insurer’s broad interpretation of the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in an all-risk builders’ risk insurance policy. In 2014, 777 Main Street, LLC began renovations on the 27-story former Hartford National Bank building in downtown Hartford, converting the property from an office building to a mixed residential and commercial space. During the renovation, a subcontractor hired to perform the cleaning the concrete façade of the building accidentally over-sprayed the cleaning material onto the property’s windows. The subcontractor’s attempts to clean the overspray further damaged the structural integrity and cosmetic look of the windows. As a result, the owner was forced to replace over 1,800 windows, costing millions. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    December 11, 2013 —
    The Hillsboro, Oregon School District has settled a lawsuit with Mahlum Architects of Portland, one of the four companies sued by the school district over problems with a soccer field. The total lawsuit was for $1.7 million. The architects have settled for $25,000. The manufacturer of Astro Turf also settled with the school for an as-yet undisclosed amount. What the school describes as the “primary defendants” have yet to settle. The school had to close the soccer field when drainage problems lead to large holes in the playing field. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    April 06, 2016 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings we have discussed the intersection of contracts, construction and fraud on several occasions. We’ve even discussed how such fraud can bleed over from the civil to the criminal. Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court weighed in again on the question of construction fraud and criminal allegations. In O’Connor v. Tice, the Court discussed a malicious prosecution action brought by a contractor against owners of a commercial building. In O’Connor, the owners and the contractor got into a disagreement over alleged damage to the roof of the owners’ building and who was responsible. In response to this disagreement, the owners contacted the local sheriff’s office, accusing the contractor of construction fraud, and then wrote a “15 day letter” to the contractor outlining the criminal consequences should he fail to pay the damages sought in the owners civil lawsuit. Subsequently, a criminal warrant was issued against the contractor based solely upon the word of the owners. This last occurred at the insistence of the owners (who did not inform the sheriff’s deputy or the Commonwealth Attorney that they’d had this conversation or that the contractor had partially performed) after they discussed the matter with the contractor’s attorney and were informed that any claim that they may have had was civil in nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law Musings
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    August 06, 2019 —
    New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    October 22, 2014 —
    Secret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product. The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office. The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick G. Lee, Bloomberg
    Mr. Lee may be contacted at plee315@bloomberg.net

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Los Angeles and Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2022

    November 08, 2021 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2022 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with six metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Tier 1
      • Insurance Law
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
    • Tier 2
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
    Orange County
    • Tier 2
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    January 07, 2025 —
    The havoc material tariffs have caused the construction industry is nothing new. President-Elect Donald Trump imposed heavy tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first administration in 2016. While the tariffs themselves were not wholly unexpected, the ripple effect of those tariffs (coupled with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic) caused unexpected challenges for the construction industry. Those included allocating the risk of the additional costs caused by tariffs, supply and demand issues, grappling with escalation clauses, and navigating fixed price projects. The industry must now utilize the lessons learned from the rear-view mirror to strategically prepare for what was promised to be a second round of tariffs come January 2025. Tariffs’ Impacts on Material Prices Everywhere New or increased tariffs have the potential to raise prices for a wide range of construction inputs. Based on simple supply and demand principles, this includes inputs produced domestically that compete with foreign imports. For example, if a 20% tariff is imposed on Chinese steel, contractors may look to procure Brazil or U.S. steel in an effort to cut their costs. Such a rush to those less-costly alternatives may result in a supply shortage or an increase in prices in the marketplace across the globe. This occurred in 2016 when material prices indirectly related to the inputs on which the tariffs were imposed even increased. Contractors may be well served to get ahead of anticipated price increases and purchase materials now or take other actions in negotiating contracts to protect themselves. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    October 01, 2024 —
    A federal government contractor in Jackson Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 62 Fed.Cl. 84 (Fed.Cl. 2024) sought delay damages against the government. It lost. The reason for the loss is a crucial reminder that documents parties sign ALWAYS matter. ALWAYS!! In Jackson Construction Co., the contractor’s delay claim was premised on relocating a waterline. The contractor, however, received additional money for relocating the waterline, but no additional time, and this was memorialized in a modification to the contract (i.e., a change order). In executing the modification for the additional work, the contractor did NOT reserve rights for time or money. Indeed, the modification reflected that the monetary adjustment constitutes full compensation for the additional work including delay, namely:
    The contract period of performance remains the same. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of the contractor and his subcontractors and suppliers for all costs and markup directly or indirectly, including extended overhead, attributable to the change order, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the change within the time frame stated.
    Jackson Construction Co., supra, at 90.
    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