BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing 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


    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

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

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

    Contractual Setoff and Application When Performance Bond Buys Out of its Exposure

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Just Hanging Around”

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLS

    Five Issues to Consider in Government Contracting (Or Any Contracting!)

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    August 11, 2011 —

    The Seattle Times reports that a transit construction project has uncovered about twenty-five gravestones. The area was historically sensitive, as it is in territory once occupied by the Puyallup Tribe. At current report, no human remains have been found and the article cites the project?s archeological consultant as describing the gravestones as “not historically significant.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    January 13, 2014 —
    The Handy Sanitary District in North Carolina has filed a lawsuit against one of the subcontractors on the Badin Lake Sewer Project, which the Lexington Dispatch describes as “delay riddled.” The town claims that the materials used by Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates “were not adequate for the project.” Additionally, the town claims that valves were improperly installed or damaged, and that pipes were of the incorrect type and improperly connected. The Sanitary District Board of Commissioners has additionally settled a lawsuit over non-payment for work on the sewer project. The Handy Sanitary District has settled claims brought by Monroe Roadways Contractors and Young Construction with a payment of $250,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    June 30, 2011 —

    One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.

    Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.

    On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    November 30, 2016 —
    A quick drive through almost any newer residential community in the Southwest will show that a lot of residents are embracing “Green Energy” or renewable energy by placing solar panels on their properties. While most people would agree that increasing the use of alternative energy is socially responsible, there are a number of real estate investors that may view it as an opportunity to make additional profits by purchasing distressed properties with solar panels and then reselling those properties for more than they would be worth without solar panels. The theory is relatively straight forward as many believe that foreclosure of a deed of trust that was recorded before the solar panels were installed would extinguish any liens in favor of the vendor that sold or financed the sale of the solar panels. After all, it is generally held that “a valid foreclosure of a mortgage terminates all interest in the foreclosed real estate that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed.” See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 412 (2014) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages §7.1 (1997)). NOT SO FAST! While the general rule is that foreclosure of a senior lien terminates junior liens, most purveyors of solar panels do not encumber the property with mortgages or deeds of trust to secure payment of amounts they are owed. Rather, they typically either lease the solar panels to the property owner or secure repayment of the purchase price of the solar panels with a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob L. Olson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Olson may be contacted at bolson@swlaw.com

    Texas Plans a Texas-Sized Response to Rising Seas

    June 27, 2022 —
    In coastal Texas and many other places, walled cities are making a comeback. It’s quite a turnabout, as the efficacy of defensive walls had declined precipitously since the age of the long bow. Barbarians still menace, of course. But the rekindled enthusiasm for defensive walls is a response to a different kind of threat. San Francisco is contemplating a huge tidal wall across its bay to fend off sea rise and the attendant dousing of some of the world’s most expensive real estate. Miami is weighing the damage a sea wall would do to tourist vistas against the damage a rising sea might do absent a wall. New Orleans, after $14 billion in levee construction, is an armored metropolis. Norfolk, Virginia, another low-lying city exposed to a surging sea, is spending a few hundred million federal dollars on a downtown sea wall. New York City, which has flooded in two devastating storms so far this century, is building a $1.45 billion series of walls, floodgates and underground drainage, a modest down payment on the city’s defense against rising tides and storm surge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Francis Wilkinson, Bloomberg

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    September 17, 2015 —
    Perhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement. Some Background BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI. Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

    October 01, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, UBS to liquidate $2 billion real estate fund, hotel workers in San Francisco vote to strike, housing market to change after blockbuster settlement, and more!
    • When it comes to buying and selling homes, new rules are about to be put in play, five months after the National Association of Realtors agreed to a settlement over how its 1.5 million agents across the U.S. are paid commissions. (Kate Gibson, CBS)
    • Project abandonments tumbled in July in one of the largest monthly declines ever due to the anticipated interest rate cut. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
    • Increases in energy prices drove most of the total rise in construction input costs over the past month. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    October 28, 2011 —

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…

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