BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    U.S. Home Prices Climbed 0.1% in July as Gains Slowed

    Surprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    $1.9 Trillion Stimulus: Five Things Employers Need to Know

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

    Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    When Construction Defects Appear, Don’t Choose Between Rebuilding and Building Your Case

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    Flood Insurance Claim Filed in State Court Properly Dismissed

    The Rise Of The Improper P2P Tactic

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    Top 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter Meeting

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation
    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

    The Future of Airport Infrastructure in a Post-Pandemic World

    March 21, 2022 —
    In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many service industries are reevaluating their physical footprint, and the aviation industry is no exception. Opportunities abound for developers, designers, and contractors to update and expand airport terminals to accommodate traditional needs while also meeting the growing demand for more open space (including larger outdoor areas in terminals and larger cargo facilities to meet the needs of Amazon, FedEx and UPS). The Future of Passenger Terminals In nearly every service industry, safety and hygiene policies are being overhauled, with a specific emphasis on the desire for more space across the board. Even before the pandemic caused a seismic shift in the way individuals interact with each other, airports and airlines had started reducing the number of unnecessary interactions between travelers and employees by introducing self-service check-in kiosks and contactless ordering at restaurants. The automation inside the airport will only continue to advance. Reprinted courtesy of Cait Horner, Pillsbury and Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    June 30, 2016 —
    Contracts and subcontracts often contain language that requires change orders to be in writing and that no change order work shall be performed unless agreed to in advance in a signed change order. Oftentimes change order work is performed but the parties have not complied with the strict requirements of the contract by having this work signed off by the parties in a change order prior to the commencement of the work. Well, can such requirements be waived? If so, can such change orders form the basis of a Miller Act claim? The answer is generally yes provided the party arguing waiver can support the waiver with evidence (that the other party voluntarily relinquished the requirements through its course of conduct / actions). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

    April 25, 2022 —
    Business owners must carefully consider how the people working for them are classified. There is a fine line between being identified as a contractor or employee on the job. Owners must know the difference to avoid being penalized. Worker classification determines if an employer must withhold income taxes and pay Social Security, Medicare taxes and unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. Businesses do not have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors. The earnings of a person working as an independent contractor are subject to self-employment tax. There are federal and state rules for determining if a person is an employee or contractor. Employers must follow both sets of guidelines when classifying workers. Reprinted courtesy of Martin C. McCarthy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. McCarthy may be contacted at marty.mccarthy@mcc-cpas.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    October 28, 2011 —

    As we approach the tenth anniversary of the passage and signing of SB800, California’s right-to-repair law, we’d like to hear your reactions to the law, your experiences with it, and your thoughts on it and right-to-repair laws in other states.

    We invite you to submit articles either reacting to SB800 or on other matters relevant to construction defect and claims issues. You can promote your firm’s capabilities and get valuable exposure through the publication of your articles. Construction Defect Journal is widely read by our highly targeted audience of decision makers, construction attorneys, builders, owners, and claims professionals.

    Articles may contain relevant images, your firm’s name, and links to your corporate website or third parties and can be submitted through e-mail to submitstory@constructiondefectjournal.com. Please remember to include your contact information if you would like it to be published with your content. If you are submitting photos or PDF documents with your article, please send them as e-mail attachments. Items submitted are assumed to be cleared for publishing upon receipt by CDJ.

    Normally articles are published in full, although we reserve the right to edit content for space purposes. All articles submitted are considered for publication. For additional questions please contact editor@constructiondefectjournal.com.

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

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

    December 13, 2022 —
    Who does not love a good souffle?! Enthusiasts will know that a great souffle is not something you can obtain quickly. Rather, it is common in restaurants to order the souffle as dessert at the beginning of the meal because it takes an hour to bake. Risk transfer – like a good souffle – also requires planning, preparation, and the right ingredients. In construction litigation, attorneys are often not retained until after the project has been completed for several years as the dispute between the homeowner and the general contractor or developer took time to escalate to formal litigation. A significant part of defense counsel’s legal analysis involves assessing and evaluating risk transfer opportunities. For example, in the case of a general contractor or developer who did not self-perform the construction work but instead retained subcontractors to do so, counsel will assess if risk can be transferred from the general contractor or developer to the subcontractors who performed the work which the homeowners allege is defective. In other words, a developer or general contractor can reduce their risk (i.e. liability and money owed) by transferring said risk (i.e. pointing the finger at) to a third party. Sounds easy, right? Unfortunately, just like the souffle making process, it is easier said than done. This task can be exceedingly difficult in the absence of contracts that contain strong indemnity and insurance provisions – the essential ingredients to effect risk transfer. Worry not! We have provided “baking” instructions for you below to help you get a great risk transfer souffle time and again. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    June 25, 2019 —
    The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.” After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    October 18, 2021 —
    In the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers. Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located. Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    November 10, 2016 —
    The insureds' motion for partial summary judgment on the applicability of the homeowner's mold limitation was denied. R.W.& R. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 131586 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2016). The policy imposed a $5,000 limit on losses caused by mold. Plaintiffs discovered that their dishwasher was leaking and reported the loss to Liberty. Liberty's contractor concluded that the bottom of the dishwasher had rusted out, causing water to seep into parts of the kitchen and the laundry/utility room below. The contractor used dehumidifiers to extract moisture from the affected areas and removed damaged cabinetry, drywall and tiling. The contractor discovered mold that it believed predated the dishwasher leak. Although the contractor took steps to remove the mold, its dehumidification efforts exacerbated the problem by dispersing mold spores throughout portions of the house. 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