BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

    How to Prevent Forest Fires by Building Cities With More Wood

    Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

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

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/31/24) – International Homebuying Shrinks Commercial Real Estate Focus on Sustainability, and U.S. Banks Boost Provisions for Credit Losses

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada

    The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    Using the Prevention Doctrine
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    August 03, 2020 —
    Several interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts. FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes. On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    March 22, 2017 —
    90 days. 150 days. 6 months. 30 days. Do these numbers sound familiar? If you read Construction Law Musings regularly, they should be. These are various deadlines relating to the recording and enforcement of mechanic’s liens in Virginia. 90 days from your last work performed (or from the last date of the last month of work in the correct circumstances) sets the outside limit on when a construction company can record a lien on a construction project. 150 days is the “look back” period for what work’s value can be included in that lien. 6 months is the statute of limitations for the filing of an enforcement suit. Finally, 30 days amount of time after your start of work within which you, as a construction professional, must notify a mechanic’s lien agent of your presence on a residential project. Of course, there are always nuances to these rules that need to be taken into account, preferably with the help of your friendly neighborhood construction attorney, before deciding how to proceed in this very picky and “form over function” area of construction law. 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

    Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?

    August 19, 2024 —
    Technology has always been a driving force behind progress, and the construction industry is no exception. Over the years, technological advancements have revolutionized the way companies design, plan and build structures, leading to increased efficiency, safety and sustainability. From virtual-reality simulations to drones and 3D printing, technology has transformed every aspect of the construction process. However, the construction trades still lag behind other sectors in adoption of digital technologies. With a lack of skilled labor continuing to be an impediment to growth and profitability in the construction industry, technological developments could have significant implications for successful adopters. Already, the industry is seeing a huge difference in valuation between traditional engineering and construction firms and construction software companies. As labor shortages continue to hinder growth in the industry, consolidation is likely, as is the probability that companies with the greatest tech capabilities will be the most highly valued. There are several areas of technology that are of the greatest interest in the current marketplace. BIM Building information modeling with computer-aided design software now allows architects and engineers to create detailed and accurate 3D models of buildings and infrastructure projects, integrating data about every aspect of the building, from materials and costs to energy efficiency and maintenance schedules. These models not only help in visualizing the final product; they also enable better communication and collaboration among project stakeholders. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Silver, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    January 17, 2014 —
    The City of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against Tutor-Saliba Corp. and O&G Industries Inc., which had created a joint venture to rebuild Runway 25L at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), according to Brian Sumers writing for the Daily Breeze. However, lawyers for the construction companies are alleging that the lawsuit was filed a year too late: “…the complaint’s first four causes of action against Joint Venture are indisputably barred under California Law,” lawyers from Castle & Associates claimed. This news came soon after a plane blew a tire on the same runway involved in the lawsuit, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The blown out tire may not be related to the alleged construction defects: “The runway is usable,” Nancy Castles, spokeswoman for Los Angeles World airports told the Los Angeles Times. Castles explained that “the lawsuit is about ‘deterioration’ and that at some point the runway will need to be rebuilt, but that time is not now.” Read the full story at the Daily Breeze... Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

    October 29, 2014 —
    According to Crain’s Chicago Business, “as few as a fifth of elevators get the required annual checkup,” Chicago Inspector General Joe Ferguson claimed. Ferguson audited the roughly 5,100 buildings that city inspectors were assigned to inspect elevators, and found that only 965 were actually inspected, reported Crain’s Chicago Business. Furthermore, “when problems were found in inspections conducted by city personnel, they often were not fixed in a timely manner, again according to city records.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    September 21, 2020 —
    In Fadeeff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.App.5th 94 (May 22, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with a smoke and soot damage claim made by Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff (the “Fadeeffs”) for damage sustained by their home due to the 2015 Valley Fire. The parties’ dispute arose out of the Valley Fire, which took place in Lake County, California. The Fadeeffs’ home was located in Hidden Valley Lake. The Fadeeffs submitted a claim to State Farm under their homeowners policy. Initially, after an adjuster inspected the home and noted that it was “well maintained” with no apparent maintenance issues, State Farm made a series of payments and arranged for ServPro to clean the smoke and soot damage. Subsequently, the Fadeeffs retained an independent adjuster and submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $75,000. State Farm retained a different unlicensed adjuster to investigate the claim and retained expert, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to inspect the Fadeeffs’ home, and another company referred to as HVACi, to inspect the Fadeeffs’ HVAC system. The independent adjuster used to investigate the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim failed to follow company guidelines in connection with using experts, which required specific questions to be addressed by the expert. In addition, FACS only took surface samples of the walls in the Fadeeffs’ home. Ultimately, the reports prepared by FACS and HVACi concluded that no additional work was required to remediate the damage sustained by the Fadeeffs’ home. Thereafter, State Farm denied the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

    First-Time Buyers Home Sales Stagnates

    October 22, 2014 —
    Despite a rise overall in home sales, “first-time buyer share remained unchanged from the previous two months at 29%, far behind the historical average first-time buyer share of about 40%,” reported National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing. However, “[e]xisting home sales increased to the highest level of the year, having posted gains for five of the last six months, despite weakness among first-time buyers. Existing home sales increased 2.4% in September, but remain 1.7% below the same period a year ago.” According to Eye on Housing, existing sales is expected to continue to increase throughout the year, though the first-time buyer segment is “the weak spot.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    July 23, 2014 —
    South Africa’s government is putting pressure on construction companies to make further payments as punishment for rigging contracts to build stadiums for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup and other projects. Antitrust authorities fined 15 builders, including Murray & Roberts Holdings Ltd. (MUR) and Aveng Ltd., a total of 1.5 billion rand ($141 million) in June 2013, after a probe that spanned almost four years found they colluded to drive up prices. “The 1.5 billion rand in penalties is not the end of the story with the construction industry,” Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel told lawmakers in Cape Town today. “We are now in discussion with the construction industry on a restitution package for their collusion and price fixing.” Mr. Bhuckory may be contacted at kbhuckory@bloomberg.net; Mr. Cohen may be contacted at mcohen21@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kamlesh Bhuckory and Mike Cohen, Bloomberg