BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut multi family design 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


    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Death, Taxes and Attorneys’ Fees in Construction Disputes

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Stick to Your Guns on Price and Pricing with Construction Contracts

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023

    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    Chicago’s Bungalows Are Where the City Comes Together

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails
    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

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    June 05, 2023 —
    A New York federal judge recently ruled that an insurer waived its late notice defense because a generic reservation of rights was insufficient to preserve it. As a result, the policyholder’s claim was preserved despite being submitted more than three months after the loss—a delay which would ordinarily be fatal under New York law. The decision underscores the importance both of timely submission of claims and careful attention to reservation of rights letters. Background Mave Hotel Investors LLC (“Mave”) owns a small hotel in Manhattan that was insured by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”). From October 2017 to October 2020, Mave contracted with a housing network to temporarily house homeless families and their children in the hotel. When the contract with the housing network terminated in October 2020, Mave alleged that the rooms were severely damaged and that it had to pay $1.4 million to repair them. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Janine A. Hanrahan, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hanrahan may be contacted at jhanrahan@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    July 06, 2020 —
    In 501 East 51st Street etc. v. Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (No. B293605, filed 4/2/20, ordered pub. 4/16/20), a California appeals court affirmed summary adjudication and dismissal of a bad faith claim based on the genuine dispute doctrine. 501 East 51st Street Long-Beach-10, LLC (501) was the owner of a 10-unit apartment complex, insured by Kookmin Best. In 2017, an underground water main alongside the building burst which, according to 501, caused the building to move and crack. 501 made a claim and supplied a geotechnical report finding cracks in the foundation walls, cracks in the stucco and significant floor deformation and tilting near the water leak. The engineer’s opinion concluded that that “existing building distress was substantially contributed to by the water main break. The water introduced to the soil medium appears to have triggered differential foundation movement causing the stress features to develop.” Kookmin retained its own engineers to investigate, who returned an opinion that the leak had exacerbated long-term pre-existing settlement which would continue. Under the policy, damage to the building caused by earth movement and settlement were excluded, but water damage resulting from an “accidental discharge” of water was covered. Kookmin then obtained an opinion from coverage counsel, who opined that only damage allocable to the water leak would be covered. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

    May 07, 2015 —
    New single-family houses are selling fast enough in the U.S. that homebuilders will have to pick up the pace of starting them, according to Neil Dutta, head of U.S. economics at Renaissance Macro Research LLC. The attached chart compares annual growth rates in sales and starts, as compiled by the Commerce Department, during the past 25 years. The top panel shows the rates, while the bottom panel tracks the percentage-point gap between then. Last month’s sales of one-family homes totaled 510,000 at an annual rate, according on the average estimate of economists in a Bloomberg survey. The projection amounts to a 26.6 percent increase from a year ago. Builders began working on 2.7 percent fewer homes in March, according to data released yesterday. The 29.3-point differential would be the widest since July 1995. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Wilson, Bloomberg
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at dwilson@bloomberg.net

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    September 13, 2021 —
    This article is the first of a three-part series on contingencies in construction contracts. This series will explain:
    • what a construction contingency is;
    • the two primary schools of thought regarding how a construction contingency fund should be used and managed; and
    • construction contract drafting considerations for contingency clauses.
    Armed with this information, owners and contractors will be better equipped to tackle the inevitable project surprises. Life is full of surprises, some good and some not too good. Surprises during construction are seldom welcome events. However, experienced owners and contractors know to expect the unexpected and plan accordingly by including contingency funds in their budgets. For them, the question is not whether or not to include a contingency, but how much to set aside and how to structure and manage the fund. Reprinted courtesy of Josh Levy, Katesha Long & Samantha Schacht, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Schacht may be contacted at samantha.schacht@huschblackwell.com Ms. Long may be contacted at katesha.long@huschblackwell.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    January 28, 2013 —
    Ben Kim, the former police lieutenant whose wife is one of the figures in the scheme to take over Las Vegas homeowner associations in order to profit from construction defect settlements, might face a six-month sentence in a bank fraud scheme. Mr. Kim has plead guilty in the charges that he submitted false financial documents. Others who were involved in the homeowner scandal, including Mr. Kim's wife, were also involved in this case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    February 16, 2017 —
    In prior articles, I reinforced the importance of general contractors including “primary and noncontributory” language in subcontracts and requiring the subcontractor to provide an analogous “primary and noncontributory” endorsement. As a general contractor this is important, particularly since you are going to require the subcontractor to (i) indemnify you for claims relating to personal injury, property damage, or death, and (ii) identify you as an additional insured under its commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims arising out of the subcontractor’s scope of work. The “primary and noncontributory” language in your subcontracts allows you to maximize the value of your additional insured status. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    July 18, 2022 —
    What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    September 21, 2020 —
    In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
    1. Procure or obtain;
    2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
    3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
    Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of