BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Wreckage Removal Underway at Site of Collapsed Key Bridge in Baltimore, But Weather Slows Progress

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (12/4/24) – Highest Rate of Office Conversions, Lending Caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Affordability Challenges for Homebuyers

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Recognized in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: One’s to Watch” 2024 Editions

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    September 03, 2015 —
    The Chicago Tribune reported that Hoyne Development and Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago are suing the city of Chicago, claiming that the “Affordable Requirements Ordinance is unconstitutional because it involves the taking of private party without ‘just compensation,’ violating the Fifth Amendment.” Shannon Breymaier, spokeswoman for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, however, disputes the claims, and told the Chicago Tribune in an email that the city planned to “defend the ordinance vigorously.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    December 09, 2011 —

    Glen C. Hansen, writing on Abbott & Kinderman’s Land Use Law Blog looks at several cases pending before the California Supreme Court which ask if a developer can insist on arbitration of construction defect claims, based on provision in the CC&Rs. Currently, there is a split of opinions in the California appeals courts on the issue.

    Four of the cases are in California’s Fourth Appellate District. In the earliest case, Villa Milano Homeowners Association v. Il Davorge, from 2000, the court concluded that the arbitration clause was sufficient to require that construction defect claims undergo arbitration. However, the Fourth Appellate District Court concluded in three later cases that the arbitration clauses did not allow the developer to compel arbitration. In two cases, argued in 2008 and 2010, the court concluded that to do otherwise would deprive the homeowners of their right to a jury trial. In the most recent case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Nobel Court Development, the court decided that the CC&Rs did not create contractual rights for the developer.

    The Second Appellate District Court came to a similar decision in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Association v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc. In their decision, the court noted that CC&Rs could be enforced by homeowners and homeowners associations, but not developers.

    Read the full story…

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

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    February 07, 2013 —
    The City Bella on Lyndale homeowners association settled with the high rise's developer and builder for $1.9 million over construction defects. The defects included structural deterioration in the project's pool area, extensive air and water leaks in the windows, and structural problems in the project's underground parking garage. City Bella consists of a 15-story tower and a four-story building on Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis. They settled the lawsuit in 2011, but the homeowners association is still looking to the insurers to pay up. With legal fees and interest, the total rises to $2.82 million that Travelers could be paying the association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

    July 31, 2013 —
    One of the bright spots in the Colorado construction industry over the last few years has been the construction of for-rent apartments. It seems as though apartments are going up everywhere you look along the Front Range. As market forces change, it will be interesting to see whether these units will remain apartments or whether they will be converted into for-sale condominiums or townhouses. One of the risk management strategies we have recently discussed with our general contractor clients who have been asked to build apartments is to ensure that the project remains a for-rent apartment project through the applicable statute of repose, conservatively assumed to be eight years. Unfortunately this is not always feasible, usually because the owner and/or lender are not interested in encumbering the property for such a long period of time, and want to retain the ability to convert the project if and when market forces allow, even if that is before the running of the statute of repose. The purpose of this article is to discuss the insurance and risk management ramifications of converting a project too early. I have recently heard from several sources in the insurance industry that there are owners and contractors who are currently building apartments with the idea that they will be held as apartments for two to three years and then converted to for-sale condominiums or townhomes. While this strategy may have great appeal from a business point of view, it has a very serious risk management downside. Apparently, these owners and contractors are operating under the mistaken belief that they will have no liability exposure to the ultimate purchasers of the converted units or to the homeowners association for construction defects. This is an incorrect belief. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    January 05, 2017 —
    On December 8, 2016, the Philadelphia City Council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance governing realty transfer taxes in an effort to increase tax revenue. The current combined realty transfer tax rate in Philadelphia is 4.0% and will increase to 4.1% after December 31, 2016.[1] The amendment significantly impacts how taxes are imposed upon transfers of ownership in so-called “real estate companies” and effectively eliminates deals commonly referred to as 89-11 transactions. The amendment mainly focuses on transfers of real estate companies, rather than direct transfers of real estate, but it also affects certain direct transfers of real estate in exchange for noncash consideration. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Nancy Frantz, Kevin Koscil and James Vandermark Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods

    October 09, 2018 —
    As October rolls in, slow-moving flood crests and sluggish drainage persisting weeks after the passage of Hurricane Florence are leaving large eastern areas in the affected states too inundated for accurate damage assessments. The extent of damage is still largely uncalculated. In some cases, it’s believed to be worsening. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and Tom Sawyer, Engineering News-Record Mr. Parsons may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

    January 13, 2020 —
    In July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract. The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret. The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech. The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding. In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement. Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit. The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms. Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    December 09, 2019 —
    Any general contractor understands the range of factors that go into building and sustaining a successful jobsite: hiring the right team, maintaining cutting-edge equipment, ensuring constant communication with clients and effectively leveraging the newest building technologies, just to name a few. But any good general contractor understands that there is one factor that should always be considered as top priority: jobsite safety. The health and wellbeing of a project’s team is paramount for obvious reasons, and it isn’t a lighthearted matter. Injuries and fatalities have too often been a piece of our industry’s story. In 2017 alone, there were 971 reported deaths on construction sites, which accounted for 20% of total worker fatalities, according to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of these 971 fatalities, 582 were the result of construction’s “fatal four”—falls, workers being struck by objects, electrocutions and workers being caught between equipment. For members of the industry, these are difficult numbers to read and to process; yet, it is extremely important to consider the injuries and lives lost when we take into consideration the seriousness of jobsite safety. Often, general contractors’ and superintendents’ greatest challenge isn’t being convinced of the necessity of jobsite safety practices in protecting employees or the value of safety in creating a productive work environment. Instead, the focus should be providing industry leaders tips on exactly how to improve safety measures on their own jobsites. Understanding that safety is everyone’s responsibility is paramount. Reprinted courtesy of Ray Reese, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Reese may be contacted at rreese@rives.com