BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Congratulations 2022 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    The Burden of Betterment

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    The Housing Market Is Softening, But Home Depot and Lowe's Are Crushing It

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program
    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

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    July 13, 2020 —
    Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
    In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
    U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).
    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

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    December 08, 2016 —
    The New Year will bring with it the biggest change to Pennsylvania’s Mechanics Lien Law since the current law was passed in 1963. These changes will impact owner, contractors, and subcontractors equally. However, the biggest benefits will probably be for real estate developers and other project owners. On December 31, 2016, Pennsylvania will go live with a website known as the State Construction Notices Directory. On that date, owners will have the option of making projects costing $1,500,000 or more “searchable projects.” An owner makes a project a searchable project by filing with the Notices Directory a “Notice of Commencement” before works begins. The Notice of Commencement must include the name, address, and email address of the contractor, full name and location of the searchable project, the county where the project is located, a legal description of the searchable property, and the name address, and email address of the searchable project owner. Importantly, the owner must also post a copy of this Notice of Commencement at the project site. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    September 03, 2015 —
    Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    May 10, 2017 —
    What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    March 12, 2014 —
    Fifteen minutes after a New York City resident reported the pervasive smell of gas in her East Harlem neighborhood, a massive explosion destroyed two buildings, killing two people and injuring at least 18. Utility workers arrived too late. The explosion at 1644 and 1646 Park Ave., near 116th Street, reported about 9:30 a.m., was heard miles away and turned into a five-alarm fire. Windows were blown out as far as 10 blocks away, and cars across the street were wrecked. The blast sent debris onto adjacent elevated train tracks, halting commuter rail service in and out of Grand Central Terminal. Minor wounds were too numerous to count, said Frank Gribbon, a spokesman for the New York City Fire Department. “This is a tragedy of the worst kind,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said during a news conference near the scene. He said residents are still missing from the buildings, which had a total of 15 units, and crews would search for them when the fire is extinguished. Ms. Kaske may be contacted at mkaske@bloomberg.net; Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Kaske and Henry Goldman, Bloomberg

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    November 07, 2012 —
    A Michigan couple seeks to void their purchase of a condo in Texas after discovering that the complex was undergoing a construction defect lawsuit. ABQ Journal reports that Charles M. Lea and Olga Y. Ziabrikova said that they would not have purchased the condo if they had known the association was already alleging construction defects. The condo association discovered the defects “by at least late 2010,” according to the suit. The couple bought their condo in August 2011 and heard of the defects only in March 2012. The couple notes that no one involved with the sale informed them of the construction defect complaints. The community association’s lawsuit states that problems have lead to $2.5 million in damages. The developer, Vegas Verde Condo Partners, have filed a general denial of the construction problems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

    February 12, 2014 —
    David Crowe, chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), predicts “that single-family home starts in the U.S. could rise more than 30 percent in 2014,” according to Dallas News. “My single-family forecast for 2014 is pretty aggressive — it’s 822,000 starts,” Crowe said to Dallas News. “Which is roughly 200,000 starts more than what we will likely end up with in 2013.” Dallas News also reported specifically on the Texas market. The NAHB forecasts that “by next year, Texas’ housing production will be back to ‘normal’ levels.” However, that is still below “the pre-recession peak” numbers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

    July 13, 2020 —
    This past month, after remaining relatively quiet following the coronavirus outbreak, OSHA began issuing industry-specific guidance on how to deal with the coronavirus in the workplace. Until this month, the only construction industry specific guidance issued by OSHA was an OSHA Alert entitled COVID-19 Guidance for the Construction Workforce, a one page document providing little more guidance than that workers should stay home if sick, wear masks and frequently wash hands to prevent spreading and catching the coronavirus, and to sanitize tools and work areas. Early this month, OSHA issued more comprehensive guidance for the construction industry. The guidance, as noted in the preface by OSHA is simply guidance, “is not a standard or regulation” and “creates no legal obligations. The guidance supplements general guidance applicable to all workplaces issued earlier by OSHA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com