BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Repairs to Water Infrastructure Underway After Hurricane Helene

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    3D Printing: A New Era in Concrete Construction

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    Cybersecurity on Your Project: Why Not Follow National Security Strategy?

    North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

    Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos

    Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Your Construction Contract

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    English v. RKK- There is Even More to the Story

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

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

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects
    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

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    July 30, 2015 —
    Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    November 20, 2013 —
    David Mayo, the president of the Home Builders Association of Hendersonville told housing professionals that “it’s been a tough few years, but by all accounts it’s better now.” Currently, Henderson County, North Carolina is seeing three new jobs created for every building permit issued, which is seen as the critical measure of a region’s economic health, according to Dale Akins, a market research firm. Henderson County has seen a rise in building permits, with 32% more permits issued in the first nine months of 2013 than in the same period of 2012. By contrast, adjacent Transylvania County has seen little job growth and a housing market that has shrunk by 25%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    November 15, 2022 —
    A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    July 31, 2013 —
    Homeowners in New Jersey have filed a lawsuit over unwrapped pipes in exterior walls. During the cold winter weather, the pipes froze, leading one homeowner to experience a “massive leak.” A plumber was able to end the flooding by shutting off water to the house. He then told the homeowner, Robert Long, that he had been doing the same at other homes in the community. The Longs are now party to a class-action lawsuit which seeks that the homebuilder, Ryan Homes, tell those who have purchased homes about the defect. Further, the suit seeks compensation for those whose home have been damaged, and repairs to assure that additional homes do not have their pipes burst. Stephen P. DeNittis, who is representing the Longs, said that “the code violation alleged in this case is particularly troublesome because it involves unprotected pipes hidden inside an exterior wall.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    May 03, 2017 —
    For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs. Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    June 13, 2018 —
    When two competing experts disagreed on the cause of the loss, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurer. Garcia v. Firs Community Ins. Co., Fla. App. LEXIS 4237 (Fla. Ct. App. March 28, 2018). Garcia, the homeowner, discovered water damage in his home, allegedly due to a roof leak. Garcia notified his insurer, First Community Insurance Company. A forensic engineer, Ivette Acosta, was retained by First Community to inspect the property. After the inspection, coverage was denied. The homeowner's policy covered direct loss to property only if the loss was a physical loss. Loss caused by ""rain snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building was excluded unless a covered peril first damaged the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Loss caused by wear and tear, marring, or deterioration was also excluded. 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

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    July 21, 2018 —
    It is unfortunate, but in certain matters, a construction lien foreclosure action is not actually driven by the principal amount in dispute. Oh no. Rather, it is driven by attorney’s fees. That’s right. Attorney’s fees. This is true even though Florida applies the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. However, oftentimes the prospect of attorney’s fees is enough for parties to fear that exposure. There is a 1985 Florida Supreme Court case that I like to cite if applicable, C.U. Associates, Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 1985), that finds, “in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 [a construction lien claim], a litigant must have recovered an amount exceeding that which was earlier offered in settlement of the claim.” Accord Sullivan v. Galske, 917 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that although contractor is receiving a judgment in his favor, he may not be the prevailing party if the homeowner offered to settle prior to the lawsuit for an amount equal to or greater than the award in the judgment). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    May 03, 2021 —
    New York City’s builders have had a curious reaction to a pandemic that emptied Manhattan’s office towers, shuttered restaurants and kept tourists home. Over the past year, as scores of businesses closed and many residents beat it out of town, developers doubled-down on visions of steel-and-glass grandeur, hatching plans that could transform the city. Vornado Realty Trust recently said it will demolish the Hotel Pennsylvania and add an office tower taller than 1,200 feet (366 meters) at the site by Madison Square Garden. Near Grand Central Terminal, giant towers are sprouting, including a project to redevelop the Grand Hyatt next to the transit hub. The developers are proposing a 1,600-foot skyscraper that would be among the tallest in the Western Hemisphere. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark & Natalie Wong, Bloomberg