BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut soil failure 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


    U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times

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

    Contractors: A Lesson on Being Friendly

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    Hail Drives Construction Spending in Amarillo

    Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

    Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    How Will Artificial Intelligence Impact Construction Litigation?

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Appraisal Goes Forward Even Though Insurer Has Yet to Determine Coverage on Additional Claims

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/16/24) – Chevron Ruling’s Impact on Construction Industry, New Kind of Public Housing and Policy Recommendations from Sustainable Building Groups

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

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

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass
    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

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    November 07, 2022 —
    In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants. ITC Site Plan The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ric Macchiaroli, Pillsbury
    Mr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    July 16, 2014 —
    The construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.” How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.” Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project. “In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported. During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    August 06, 2014 —
    Indirect notice to the insurer was sufficient to trigger coverage for the additional insured under a liability policy. Spoleta Constr., LLC v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5174 (N.Y. App. Div. July 11, 2014). An employee of the subcontractor was injured at the construction project on October 20, 2008. The general contractor was named as an additional insured on the subcontractor's CGL policy with Aspen. Under the subcontract, the subcontractor also agreed to defend and indemnify the general contractor for all claims arising out of the subcontractor's work. The general contractor did not receive notice of the accident until late December 2009 in a letter from the injured employee's attorney. On January 27, 2010, the general contractor's liability carrier sent a letter to the subcontractor giving notice of the employee's claim and requesting that the subcontractor put its carrier on notice. On February 9, 2010, the subcontractor sent to Aspen a claim form with the January 2010 letter attached. 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

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    November 17, 2016 —
    In the latest development in a federal small disadvantaged-business case, a construction company executive has pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to commit wire fraud. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    September 10, 2018 —
    More than $3 billion in flood risk reduction and repair projects can move forward in Houston following a vote held on Hurricane Harvey's anniversary that authorized a $2.5-billion bond program. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, ENR and Pam Radtke Russell, ENR Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

    June 04, 2024 —
    Peckar & Abramson is proud to have represented one of the nation’s largest general contractors in the achievement of a $48 million award in its favor and the denial of a $135 million claim against it in Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida on May 3, 2024 arising out of the FDOT’s $2.3 billion reconstruction of I-4, a P3 project and the Department’s largest project ever in the State of Florida. After a 2-week bench trial, P&A secured the favorable decision which found that the general contractor client was entitled to recover $48 million on its affirmative claim against the party who initiated the lawsuit and that it did not breach its fiduciary duties and was not grossly negligent as was claimed which resulted in a denial of the initiating party’s $135 million claim in its entirety. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson

    Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

    April 06, 2020 —
    In my earlier article, Profiting From Fear: What You Need to Know About Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Emergency, I discuss price gouging and how the anti-price gouging statute, California Penal Code 396 (“CPC 396”), protects buyers of goods and services deemed vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers. Part II of the article provides guidance to landlords on the parameters applicable to acceptable price increases and focuses attention on the application of CPC 396 to rental housing and related issues. California Penal Code 396 As it pertains to housing, defined as “any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year,” price gouging occurs when a landlord increases the rent of an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10 percent of the previously charged or advertised price following an emergency or disaster declaration for a period of 30 days.2 A residential landlord is only allowed to increase rent in excess of 10 percent if “the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent or that an increase was contractually agreed to by the tenant prior to the proclamation or declaration” (CPC 396(e).) Further, landlords are prohibited from evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the statute (CPC 396(f).)3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dan Schneider, Newmeyer Dillion
    Mr. Schneider may be contacted at daniel.schneider@ndlf.com

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    September 03, 2014 —
    On August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal. An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work. Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of