BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

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

    Surplus Lines Carrier Can Force Arbitration in Louisiana Despite Statute Limiting Arbitration

    Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

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

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

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

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say

    Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

    Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Congress Passes, President Signs Sweeping Energy Measure In Spend Bill
    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

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    April 29, 2024 —
    Soon after taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, entitled, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” This is an unusually long and complex executive order and includes many provisions relating to environmental justice and the plight of “disadvantaged communities” that are overwhelmed by many environmental threats. Section 223 of the Order describes the President’s “Justice40 Initiative,” which is designed to ensure that 40% of Federal benefits flow to disadvantaged communities through an “all of government approach.” There is a recognition that some disadvantaged communities lack the personnel and resources to take advantage of this Initiative, so technical training funds will be made available. The Order establishes new offices throughout the Federal bureaucracy to handle and expedite environmental justice matters. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) play a large role in implementing the Initiative by issuing appropriate guidance and assisting the Federal agencies to locate, among the thousands of programs they supervise, suitable programs that will assist disadvantaged communities. At last count, 518 Federal programs administered by 19 distinct Federal agencies could be a good source for the resources needed by disadvantaged communities to cope with air and water pollution and solid waste issues. Direct grants will be made in many cases, and other programs require the community to apply for the funds promised by the Executive Order. In addition, the Order requires participating Federal agencies to assess the value and effectiveness of the benefits bestowed. OMB and the CEQ have issued guidance documents and conducted many meetings with key personnel and members of the disadvantaged communities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    August 04, 2015 —
    It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    June 26, 2014 —
    Ben Stapleton frames the shot with his hands like a movie director, sharing his vision of a junkyard he’s trying to sell for $3.5 million. He sees artist workspaces, retail shops and apartments with Los Angeles skyline views, steps from a riverfront oasis. Right now the river of his dreams is the concrete flood channel where an 18-wheeler chased Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Harley in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” one of the movies that used the 200-foot-wide (60-meter) ditch to depict industrial bleakness. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to return the Los Angeles River to a more natural state would cost $1 billion and has speculators circling even before the funding’s in place. “The private money is already moving,” said Stapleton, a vice president at commercial real-estate brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (JLL) “They’re looking for opportunities. It’s the private money that’s going to make the vision happen.” Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Ohnsman may be contacted at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman, Bloomberg

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

    December 14, 2020 —
    The most un-Halloween of Halloweens has come and gone. If you ask me though, between COVID, protests, fires, hurricanes, the passing of a Supreme Court Justice, and one of the most hotly contested elections in U.S. history, we’ve had enough scares this year to make up for it and then some. In the next case, Sieg v. Registrar of Contractors, Case No. A156089 (September 28, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeal, one contractor, haunted by “demonized” flooring, and who couldn’t catch a break even with the talisman of a release of liability signed by the homeowner, can add one more to his list of reasons why 2020 needs to be relegated to the history books. The Sieg Case In January 2012, homeowners Dennis and Ana Torchia purchased wood flooring for their home in Windsor, California. Specifically, they selected Brazilian Ebony, an exotic species of unusually hard wood, for its appearance and durability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    March 14, 2018 —
    Alene Tchekmedyian’s LA times article “Storm triggers evacuations in Santa Barbara County: 'Don't be fooled into thinking that this can’t happen again',” warns of the deadly potential of mudslides following the devastation that occurred in January that caused 21 fatalities and damaged homes in Montecito. Debris flow could be triggered by rainfall rates predicted to exceed half and inch per hour. In some areas as much as seven-tenths of an inch of rain per hour are possible because of a chance of thunderstorms. Mandatory evacuations began Monday to protect residents from the fast-moving storm that is predicted to be worse than January’s. Santa Barbara county officials asked that people help spread the word of the evacuation to everyone in their community. They also created an interactive map to help residents determine their risk level. Matilija Canyon and North Fork in Ventura County are under voluntary evacuation orders. Areas at the highest risk include Thomas, Sherpa, and Whittier burn areas. Residents can find shelter at the Goleta Valley Community Center at 5679 Hollister Avenue. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    June 17, 2011 —

    Well, it finally made it. The most important Washington lien case of recent memory was argued in front of the Washington Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 14, 2011. So, what should we all expect?

    As I was reading through my RSS feeds this afternoon ? I was stopped dead in my tracks. Williams v . Athletic Field, the Division II case that has been a frequent topic here on Builders Counsel, has finally been argued before the Supreme Court. All of you who have been anxiously awaiting this day, you can check out the Supreme Court submissions by following this link.

    The Williams case has been the center of attention for construction lawyers and construction organizations over the past year. Some have called for complete lien law reform, others have tried to patch a hole in the law. Now, we can expect a ruling from the highest court in the state. That ruling will have a major impact on whether the Legislature feels compelled to change lien law.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    June 04, 2024 —
    In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cases in litigation in federal court but which are determined to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act should be stayed pending arbitration, not dismissed. Traditionally, some federal circuits treated the text of 9 U.S.C. §3 – which speaks in terms of a stay of a matter filed in court but referred to arbitration (“…shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement…”) – as discretionary, dismissing suits when all of the claims brought in the court were referred to arbitration. In the case, the plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court on labor law violations, and the case was removed to federal court. When the defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the plaintiffs “conceded that all of their claims were arbitrable.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs requested a stay of the case, which the district court refused, dismissing the case without prejudice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com