BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    “Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments

    As Climate Changes, 'Underwater Mortgage' May Take on New Meaning

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    #1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

    Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

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

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Partner Lisa M. Rolle and Associate Vito John Marzano Obtain Dismissal of Third-Party Indemnification Claims

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

    Be Strategic When Suing a Manufacturer Under a Warranty with an Arbitration Provision

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It
    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

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    November 20, 2013 —
    The Motley Fool suggests that commercial construction is the next hot sector. Their analysis is that lag time between a rise in residential construction and commercial construction is just about over. “Industry surveys and construction data are suggestion that commercial construction could be about to turn.” Among the indicators are increased billing by architects for commercial projects. With the exception of December 2012, with a strong slump in residential work, commercial projects lagged below residential projects from June 2012 until June 2013. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    March 29, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    January 19, 2017 —
    We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    October 14, 2013 —
    The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    May 10, 2012 —

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.

    The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.

    The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.

    In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.

    The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.

    A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”

    Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    February 12, 2013 —
    Eugene Heady of Smith Currie & Hancock reminds those involved in construction disputes to “lay down the swords.” Yes, it’s an adversarial situation, but “mediating parties must understand that courtesy, candor, and cooperation on the part of their respective lawyers will help contain the conflict and help resolve the dispute more quickly and efficiently.” Instead of doing battle with the opposition, Mr. Heady says that one should “approach mediation as an opportunity to solve a complex problem, rather than an opportunity for conquest over one’s enemy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    December 05, 2022 —
    TEJON RANCH, Calif., Nov. 30, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tejon Ranch Co. is pleased to announce the resolution of a legal dispute involving the Tejon Ranch Conservancy and the signatories to the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (Agreement), namely, Audubon California, Endangered Habitats League, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, and the Sierra Club. The dispute stemmed from the signatories' participation in the Antelope Valley Regional Conservation Strategy (AVRCIS), which was subsequently used by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to oppose Tejon Ranch Co.'s Centennial development. The 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement has been widely hailed as a historic conservation achievement in preserving one of California's great natural and working landscapes. Tejon Ranch Co.'s agreement to conserve 90 percent of its landholdings pursuant to the Agreement is a monumental contribution to conservation in California. Tejon Ranch Co. continues to be a leader in balancing the stewardship of the ranch as a natural treasure for California and achieving economic opportunities for its shareholders. The Company demonstrated that leadership with the actions it took to enforce the terms of the Agreement, which led to this legal dispute. As part of a settlement agreement, the Conservancy and the signatories dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit they filed. They also acknowledge that the AVRCIS does not contain the "best available scientific data" regarding Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings, and further, that they will not use, or support the use of, the AVRCIS or any other similar endeavors, to challenge Tejon Ranch Co.'s development projects and/or any Ranch uses consistent with the Agreement. In turn, Tejon Ranch Co. released from escrow 50% of the advance payments it withheld under the terms of the Agreement. The remaining funds will be released over a three-year period as matching funds to monies raised by the Conservancy as well as others who participate in Conservancy capital raising programs, after which the remaining funds with be released to the Conservancy to further its mission. These funds are the final fulfilment of Tejon Ranch Co.'s full funding obligations under the Agreement, totaling $11,760,000 over the past 14 years, again demonstrating Tejon Ranch Co.'s commitment to fulfilling the implementation of the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement. All parties are glad to put this dispute behind them and move forward in a cooperative manner to achieve the goals envisioned in the historic 2008 Agreement. About Tejon Ranch Co. Tejon Ranch Co. (NYSE: TRC) is a diversified real estate development and agribusiness company, whose principal asset is its 270,000-acre land holding located approximately 60 miles north of Los Angeles and 30 miles south of Bakersfield. More information about Tejon Ranch Co. can be found on the Company's website at www.tejonranch.com. Forward Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements regarding commitments of the parties under the settlement agreement and the achievement of certain goals related to Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings. These forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future results, performance, or achievements, are subject to assumptions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and important factors include, but are not limited to, the ability and willingness of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to take the actions (or refrain from taking the actions) specified in the Settlement Agreement, and the risks described in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in our annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    August 20, 2019 —
    The court approved the insurer's endorsement which stated the insured would not pay for undamaged property in order to match damaged property. Noonan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (May 24, 2019). After hail and wind damaged part of the roof in the insureds' home, American Family inspected the roof and determined that it had suffered $12,000 in damage. The insureds disputed this amount and demanded an appraisal to provide a binding estimate of the amount of loss. American Family asked the appraisers to divide their estimate into two categories - one for replacing damaged shingles and another for replacing undamaged shingles that would not match those needed to replace the damaged ones. The appraisers did not do so. They instead found that replacing the entire roof would cost $141,000 and noted there was a matching issue because alternative products did not match the current shingles on the roof. Of the $141,000 needed to replace the entire roof, American Family estimated that $87,232.98 was due to the costs of matching. The insureds sued. The district court remanded the case to the appraisers to clarify the award by differentiating the costs attributable to the actual roof damage from those attributable to shingle matching. The appraisers clarified the award and reported that actual damages were $66,619, meaning that $74,381 was attributable to matching. American Family then paid the actual damages, less the deductible, but refused to pay the rest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com