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


    Inspired by Filipino Design, an Apartment Building Looks Homeward

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    KB Home Names New President of its D.C. Metro Division

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    Replacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the Time

    Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)

    An Era of Legends

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Amazon’s Fatal Warehouse Collapse Is Being Investigated by OSHA

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Penn Station’s Revival Gets a $1.6 Billion Down Payment

    When Every Drop Matters, Cities Turn to Watertech

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    August 26, 2024 —
    If you’re like me and many others you’ve probably been watching the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, France. We were in Paris last year and we passed the construction site of the Aquatics Centre, one of only three new permanent facilities that was constructed for this year’s Olympics. On a side note, Parisian Uber drivers are some of the most aggressive drivers I’ve seen, replete with honking, hand gestures, and cursing at other drivers and pedestrians in, of course, French. Putain! In recent history, Olympic construction costs have skyrocketed, often vastly exceeding the planned budgets of the host cities, and, in recent years, has caused even some host city hopefuls to reconsider whether to even throwing their hats in the ring. The 2020/2021Summer Olympics in Tokyo, for example, had an original budget of $7.5 billion. The actual cost was over $13 billion and, depending on what beans you count, may have been over twice that! Paris seeks to change all of this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    December 30, 2019 —
    Newmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, is pleased to announce that, on November 18, 2019, the City Council of the City of Piedmont unanimously voted to approve the installation of 17 small cell wireless telecommunications sites by Newmeyer Dillion client Crown Castle NG West LLC, the leading provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States. This victory ends a long-running legal dispute over Crown Castle's small cell wireless network, which was vehemently opposed by Piedmont residents and previously rejected by the City Council, prompting Newmeyer Dillion to bring a lawsuit against the city in 2017. The dispute began in 2016 when Crown Castle filed an application with the City Council of the City of Piedmont to build nine small cell wireless sites designed to provide critical wireless telecommunications coverage in Piedmont. In October 2017, the Council denied the network, rejecting some of the proposed sites or approving others with onerous conditions. Newmeyer Dillion's Government, Land Use and Environmental practice group filed a lawsuit on behalf of Crown Castle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2017, challenging the Council's decision. Drawing from the language established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the lawsuit alleged that Piedmont's ordinances established an unreasonably high bar of approval, unlawfully prohibiting telecommunications services in the city. The city quickly requested a court-supervised settlement, which was approved by the City Council in December 2018 and allowed Crown Castle to reapply to build 17 small cell wireless telecommunications facilities. The unanimous City Council approval came after extensive mediation work between the two parties. "We are excited that our years-long efforts have culminated in this major win for Crown Castle, allowing them to build out critical telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Piedmont," said Michael Shonafelt, partner at Newmeyer Dillion. "With the growing national need for robust telecommunications networks that can handle voice communication and modern data demands, approvals such as this are significant, not just for the community the network serves, but for the viability of the national telecommunications network as a whole. Our team is proud to be using our multidisciplinary, business-oriented approach to successfully advise clients navigating these issues." About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 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 corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, 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.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    March 07, 2011 —

    Contractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.

    Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.

    The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    December 17, 2015 —
    Two insurers disputed who was responsible for coverage the additional insured contractor. Endurance Am. Spec. Ins. Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19194 (2nd Cir. Nov. 4, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance, finding there was coverage for the additional insured general contractor after being sued by an employee of a subcontractor. Century's policy included an Action Over Exclusion clause, which excluded insurance coverage for injury to certain employees as follows: Exclusions: . . . e. Employer's Liability "Bodily injury" to: (1) an "employee" of the named insured arising out of and in the course of:
    • (a) Employment by the named insured; or
    • (b) Performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business.
    The named insured was Pinnacle Construction & Renovation Corp. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    July 23, 2014 —
    South Africa’s government is putting pressure on construction companies to make further payments as punishment for rigging contracts to build stadiums for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup and other projects. Antitrust authorities fined 15 builders, including Murray & Roberts Holdings Ltd. (MUR) and Aveng Ltd., a total of 1.5 billion rand ($141 million) in June 2013, after a probe that spanned almost four years found they colluded to drive up prices. “The 1.5 billion rand in penalties is not the end of the story with the construction industry,” Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel told lawmakers in Cape Town today. “We are now in discussion with the construction industry on a restitution package for their collusion and price fixing.” Mr. Bhuckory may be contacted at kbhuckory@bloomberg.net; Mr. Cohen may be contacted at mcohen21@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kamlesh Bhuckory and Mike Cohen, Bloomberg

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    February 18, 2015 —
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014). After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold. While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    August 04, 2015 —
    As highlighted in our most recent post, the Colorado Court of Appeals’ Vallagio decision upheld a declaration provision that prohibited the amendment of a mandatory arbitration clause without the consent of the developer/declarant. Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). This case protects a developer/declarant’s ability to arbitrate construction defect claims with a well-crafted declaration that requires declarant consent in order to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions for construction defect actions. However, the Vallagio ruling still hangs in the balance while the Colorado Supreme Court considers the condominium association’s petition for certiorari review, filed June 18, 2015. In its petition, the association argues that the declarant consent requirement violates public policy and four separate sections of the Colorado Common Interest Act (“CCIOA”). For instance, the association argued in the courts below that a declarant consent requirement violates section 217 of CCIOA, which governs unit owners’ voting percentage requirements and provides that declarations may not require more than 67% affirmative vote for amendments. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that other provisions of section 217 contemplate consent requirements by parties other than unit owners, such as first mortgagees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    February 21, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of