BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction code 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


    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

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

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself

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

    Why Employees Are Taking Ownership of Their Architecture Firms

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Pinterest Nixes Big San Francisco Lease Deal in Covid Scaleback

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors

    There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It

    District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    Untangling Unique Legal Issues in Modern Modular Construction

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    “For What It’s Worth”

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    BWB&O Partners are Recognized as 2022 AV Preeminent Attorneys by Martindale-Hubbell!

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage Of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    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. Leveraging 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

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    March 12, 2014 —
    In Manhattan, New York, a “Supreme Court judge partially granted a temporary restraining order to Africa Israel,” which “means the developer does not at this time have to cede control of the Downtown Condominium board to unit owners, following a February lawsuit against the developers by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,” according to The Real Deal. The condominium battle began after Schneiderman filed suit against the developers, claiming that they did not fix construction defects, which in turn caused them to fail to obtain a certificate of occupancy, reported The Real Deal. The attorney general “also alleged that the pair misappropriated more than $9 million placed in an escrow account to finance those repairs.” However, according to The Real Deal, Africa Israel has claimed not to be a sponsor of the building. “Attorney Aaron Abraham, representing both Africa Israel and the sponsor of 15 Broad, claimed …that Africa Israel, an Israeli development firm led by billionaire Lev Leviev, never signed any documents claiming to be a sponsor of the building, noting that the sponsor principals were Boymelgreen and Pinchas Cohen.” Steve Sladkus, attorney for the condominium unit owners, told The Real Deal, “They partnered up with Boymelgreen — they need to deal with the fallout of that.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    August 22, 2022 —
    Municipal ordinances may provide additional defenses for construction professionals where state law does not provide sufficient protection for Colorado’s builders. Colorado state law can be a minefield of potential liability for construction professionals. Even though the state legislature has stated that it must “recognize that Construction defect laws are an existing policy issue that many developers indicate adds to for-sale costs,” the legislature has remained hesitant to provide any meaningful protection from construction defect claims, resulting in almost unlimited exposure for Colorado’s construction professionals. Given this background of state laws that do not go far enough in protecting Colorado’s construction professionals, it may be fruitful to review municipal ordinances for new defenses and to temper state law developments applicable to construction defect claims. This is an area of law that is only just developing in Colorado. In fact, the ordinances discussed in this article were only passed in the last two years with many cities only adopting the present versions of the ordinances in 2021. The two model ordinances discussed below are potentially helpful in three ways. The first model ordinance gives construction professionals a right to repair defects in the multi-family construction and in the common interest community context. The second model ordinance is helpful in two ways. First, it establishes that homeowners associations may not unilaterally circumvent ADR protections included in the original declarations for such communities.[1] Second, the ordinance reduces the risk that strict liability will be imposed on a construction professional where a building code is violated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ricky Nolen, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Nolen may be contacted at nolen@hhmrlaw.com

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    April 06, 2016 —
    We’ve written before about why the date of “completion” on a California construction project is important, and why, if I may be blunt, determining that date can be as frustrating as a one-legged man in a game of kickass. You see, in California the deadline to record a mechanics lien, serve a stop payment notice, or make a payment bond claim – important construction payment remedies the California State Legislature saw fit to help you get paid – often depends on when a project is “completed.” So, for example, the deadline for direct contractors to record a mechanics lien is 90 days from completion of the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    November 05, 2014 —
    The insured subcontractor sought coverage under its Builder's Risk policy for loss despite already being paid under contract the amount sought under the policy. MKB Constr. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136096 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2014). MKB contracted with the Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) to place gravel fill for a new building pad upon which a school building would be placed in Emmonak, Alaska. The project site was built on tundra that melted in the summer, becoming marshy and pocketed by pools of standing water. LYSD provided the bidding contractors with information stating that settlements of 3 to 9 inches could be expected in areas with 30 inches of fill. The contract was awarded to MKB, who subsequently realized it had under bid the amount of gravel fill that would be required. The estimated difference in the amount bid and the amount that would be needed was 6,583 cubic yards. LYSD refused to increase the contract price. 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

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    November 07, 2012 —
    Next June, members of the U.S. Green Building Council will be voting on changes to the LEED green building standard. “The bar is getting raised,” said Navad Malin of BuildingGreen, a consulting and publishing firm, in an article in USA Today. Under the proposed guidelines, builders would have to project energy and water use for five years as part of the certification process. However, if the occupants aren’t as green as the builders anticipated, the buildings will not lose their certification. The new rules will include higher energy standards, award points for avoiding potentially hazardous materials, and even determine what kind of plumbing items can be used. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    December 09, 2019 —
    On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full. In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    January 15, 2014 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. 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

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    January 23, 2023 —
    Starting January 1, 2023, real estate developers in Oregon and California will no longer be required to build off-street parking facilities for certain projects located near public transit. Both states enacted new rules during the course of 2022 which are effective as of the beginning of 2023, and which seek to reduce the costs of building at least some new projects in major population centers. In California, A.B. 2097 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, and prohibits city governments throughout the state (including in charter cities) from enforcing any local land use provisions which would require the developer to build parking spaces as part of their project if the project is located within one half-mile of a major public transit stop. The law applies to both residential and commercial projects. Cities can continue mandating parking for individual projects if they find that doing so is important to support the development of affordable housing—this exception was added to allay concerns that the bill would undermine “density bonus” programs which have become an important tool for the promotion of new affordable housing development around the state. In Oregon, following a 2020 executive order by Governor Kate Brown, the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (the body responsible for land use and planning regulation in Oregon) embarked on a two-year rulemaking process which culminated in July of 2022 with the approval of a set of “Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules.” Like the California legislation, these rules (in part) limit the ability of Oregon’s most populous cities to enforce parking minimums for new development projects. Unlike the California law, the Oregon rules encourage cities simply to repeal their parking mandates entirely. Cities subject the new rules which choose not to repeal their parking mandates in full must, as an alternative, adopt new local policies to reduce the amount of land dedicated to parking in certain geographies or in connection with certain uses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Allan Van Vliet, Pillsbury
    Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com