BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls

    Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022

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

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

    JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    "Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

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

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    How to Get Your Bedroom Into the Met Museum

    Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco and Cleveland Take Home Top Industry Honors

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Sustainability Is an Ever-Increasing Issue in Development

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Florida Condo Collapse Shows Town’s Rich, Middle-Class Divide

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse
    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

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    January 05, 2017 —
    One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. 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

    FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

    April 12, 2021 —
    Buffeted by hurricanes, northwest Florida’s largest-ever infrastructure effort is finally seeing the light at the end of the storm. The three-mile-long bridge across Pensacola Bay is expected to reopen to traffic this spring after an ongoing replacement effort abruptly became an emergency repair job as well. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    December 04, 2013 —
    Last year, Judge J. Michael Baxley approved a class action lawsuit over stucco problems in Sun City Hilton Head. The lawyers from S.C. State Plastering have already settled with about 140 defendants in that community, and they are trying to prevent the plaintiff’s lawyers from communicating with other residents. In June, a judge dismissed S.C. State Plastering’s request to block this communication, but the company has appealed. The South Carolina Supreme Court has heard the case regarding the notices and has yet to rule. The Chief Justice has recused herself, stating that she has a connection to the case, although she has not elaborated. Many homeowners have waited to repair their homes, hoping to receive compensation. Pulte Homes, the builder of the project, has also repaired some homes. It is not clear if those homeowners are eligible for the class action lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Outcry Over Peru’s Vast Graft Probe Prompts Top Lawyer to Quit

    January 15, 2019 —
    Peru’s Attorney General Pedro Chavarry quit his post amid allegations he sought to sabotage a plea deal with a major construction company and derail the country’s biggest corruption probe. The board of supreme prosecutors accepted his resignation Tuesday and appointed Zoraida Avalos as his replacement, according to a post on the account of the attorney general’s office. Chavarry will continue to sit on the five-member board. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Quigley, Bloomberg

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    February 26, 2015 —
    My kids don’t like riding in my car. I urge them to look outside the window (I don’t have DVD), suggest that they roll down their windows to get some fresh air (rather than have me turn on the A/C) and persist on listening to that archaic device called the radio (I don’t “stream”). Plus, I make them play “Dad Games.” Like Synonyms. In Synonyms, I say a word, and the next person has to come up with a synonym for that word until someone can’t think of another synonym. Sometimes, I take a walk on the wild side, and play “Antonyms.” Things can get heated, though. Like when someone says a word and there is a disagreement over whether that word is a synonym or not. The next case, FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School District, California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B238618 (January 27, 2015), also involved a disagreement over synonyms . . . except that the loser had to cough up nearly $10 million. 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

    Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

    February 04, 2014 —
    Wondering how to get your residential clients to pony up more money for green design? Check out today’s guest post by Carrie Van Brunt-Wiley and Katherine Wood. They are writers for the Homeowners’ Insurance Blog, which serves as a resource center for insurance consumers and homebuyers across the country. The U.S. Green Building Council’s new LEEDv4 standards present challenges for contractors, engineers, and architects – the restrictions in many cases are more stringent. There is, however an added bonus to remaining on the sustainable-building track: it’s more marketable than you think. That’s because green homes don’t just appeal to buyers with environmental concerns any more. Now smart budgeters seek them out as well. Why? While it’s true that sustainable construction can cost about 2% more than conventional methods, McGraw-Hill’s Smart Market Report says it typically increases a building’s overall value by an average of 7.5% and improves the return on investment by 6.6%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    September 29, 2021 —
    Under Florida law, there is a claim dealing with the purchase and sale of residential real property known as a Johnson v. Davis or a non-disclosure claim: “[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” Lorber v. Passick, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1952a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). A seller’s duty to disclose extends to a seller’s real estate agent/broker. Id. A non-disclosure claim is asserted by the buyer of residential real property when the buyer discovers defects or damages with the real property that he believes materially affects the value of the property. While there may be the sentiment these are easy claims to prove, they are not. Remember, a non-disclosure claim deals with facts that materially affect the value of residential real property and are NOT readily observable. The use of the language “readily observable” has been found to mean:
    “[I]nformation [that] is within the diligent attention of any buyer. To exercise diligent attention…a buyer would be required to investigate any information furnished by the seller that a reasonable person in the buyer’s position would investigate and take reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts relating to the property and to discovery them—if, of course, they are reasonably ascertainable.”
    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

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    November 19, 2021 —
    It is important to remember that if you are going to substitute materials from those specified, you need to make sure there is proper approval in doing so–make sure to comply with the contractual requirements to substitute materials. Otherwise, you could be in a situation where you are contractually required to remove the installed substituted materials and replace with the correct specified materials. This is not the situation you want to find yourself in because this is oftentimes a costly endeavor. This was the situation in Appeal-of-Sauer, Inc., discussed below, on a federal project. The best thing that you can do is comply with the contractual requirements if you want to substitute materials. If you are in the situation where it is too late, i.e., you already installed incorrect materials, you want to demonstrate the substituted materials are functionally equivalent to the specified materials and/or come up with an engineering solution, as required, that could be less costly then ripping out the installed material and replacing with the correct material. Even doing so, however, is not a “get out of jail free card” and does not necessarily mean there is not a strong basis to require you to install the correct specified material. In Appeal of- Sauer, Inc., ASBCA 61847, 2021 WL 4888192 (ASBCA September 29, 2021), a federal project’s engineering requirements required cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system. However, the prime contractor installed PVC piping instead of cast iron piping. The prime contractor believed it had the appropriate approval through its submittal. The government, through its contracting officer, directed the prime contractor to remove installed PVC piping to replace with cast iron. The government did not believe PVC piping was the functional equivalent of cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system due to its concern with the noise level of waste materials flowing through the piping. The prime contractor submitted a claim for its removal and replacement costs which was denied by the contracting officer. On appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Board agreed with the contracting officer explaining: “While we agree that a design change could be approved by the designer of record and brought to the attention of the government before being incorporated into the design documents, the [prime contractor’s] task order required that such a design change meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and accepted proposal. The plumbing submittal [the prime contractor] issued here, showing the use of PVC instead of cast iron for the above ground waste piping, did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Appeal of-Sauer, Inc., supra. 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