BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim

    4 Steps to Take When a Worker Is Injured on Your Construction Site

    Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    Orion Group Holdings Honored with Leadership in Safety Award

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Out of the Black

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Lewis Brisbois’ Houston Office Selected as a 2020 Top Workplace by the Houston Chronicle

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020

    Truck Hits Warning Beam That Falls, Kills Motorist at Las Vegas Bridge Project

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers Superpowers

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”

    Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

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

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre
    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

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    May 20, 2015 —
    According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, the combination of low interest rates and home prices has provided a “solid boost in nationwide affordability in the first quarter of 2015.” Furthermore, “66.5 percent of new and existing homes sold between the beginning of January and end of March were affordable to families earning the U.S. median income of $65,800.” Syracuse, New York remained the U.S.’s most affordable major housing market, while the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California region was the nation’s least affordable major housing market. All five of the least affordable small housing markets were in California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Let’s Get Specific: Rhode Island Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Manufacturer

    February 04, 2025 —
    In Federal Ins. Co. v. J. Gallant Elec. Servs., Inc. No. 1-22- CV-00123-MSM-LDA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218185, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island considered whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, third-party defendant. The court granted the third-party defendant’s first motion to dismiss for lack of general jurisdiction but permitted the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery. After the close of jurisdictional discovery, the third-party defendant renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This time, the court found that, based on the record, it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendant. The plaintiff, Federal Insurance Company (Insurer), brought this subrogation action after its insured, the Town of Westerly, sustained a water loss at a public elementary school in 2020. The water loss occurred while the school was undergoing renovations. A defendant, Advanced Safety Systems (Advanced), was retained to replace the fire suppression system in the computer server room. Advanced subcontracted with defendant J. Gallant Electrical Services (Gallant) to replace the electrical service panel for the sprinkler system. Gallant was in process of deenergizing the fire suppression system when the system discharged, causing damage to the equipment in the server room. After paying its insured for the damage, Insurer sued Advanced and Gallant for negligence and breach of contract, alleging that Gallant was careless in causing the system to discharge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    January 24, 2018 —
    Reaction to the recent California Supreme Court ruling in McMillin Albany LLC v. The Superior Court of Kern County has been both swift and diverse, with many notable California law firms weighing in on the potential impact this landmark ruling may have on the Construction Industry and construction defect litigation. In our ongoing desire to serve as a meaningful and comprehensive provider of news and information for Construction and Claims Professionals, we have included a selected number of the submissions we have received regarding this very important judicial ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    November 10, 2016 —
    Construction liens need to be recorded within 90 days from the lienor’s final furnishing date on the project. This date is exclusive of punchlist or warranty work. The final furnishing date needs to be proven at trial to establish that the construction lien was timely recorded. If there is an evidentiary dispute as the final furnishing date (the contractor claims the date was “x” to establish the lien was timely and the owner claims the date was “y” to establish the lien was untimely), then the date is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. For instance, in Best Drywall Services, Inc. v. Blasczyk, 2016 WL 6246701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), a contractor and owner entered into an oral agreement for a residential renovation project. The contractor recorded a construction lien after its final two invoices went unpaid. During trial, the contractor offered conflicting evidence as to when its final furnishing date on the project was. Numerous dates were offered in the record including dates that were more than 90 days prior to the date the contractor recorded its lien, meaning the lien was arguably untimely. As a result, the trial judge entered a directed verdict in favor of the owner and against the contractor on the contractor’s lien claim finding the lien was untimely recorded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    February 26, 2015 —
    According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval “signed the first major Republican-backed reform bill of the 2015 session, a measure making changes to Nevada’s construction defect law.” Sandoval stated, “During my State of the State address, I challenged the Legislature with passing meaningful construction defect reform. They have met that challenge with the Homeowner Protections Act, which discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada’s rebounding housing market,” as quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The bill, which goes into effect immediately, “restricts the definition of what constitutes a home defect, repeals a provision allowing attorney fees and costs in a home defect judgment, and requires specific descriptions of defects.” It also reduces the statute of limitations from ten years to six years, and prohibits homeowner association boards from filing suits on behalf of homeowners. Not all legislatures were in favor of the measure. For instance, Sen. Aaron Ford “called the measure the ‘homeowner rejection’ act rather than a homeowner protection act at a joint hearing on the bill,” according to the Las Vegas-Review Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    January 02, 2019 —
    Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    December 23, 2023 —
    On May 30, 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued a decision that appears to expand a contractor’s obligation with respect to WSDOT notice and claim procedures. In Graham Contracting, Ltd. v. City of Federal Way, No. 83494-1-I, 2023 WL 3721171 (Wash. Ct. App. May 30, 2023) (Unpublished), the Court held that under the 2016 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (“Standard Specifications”), a Contractor must protest the actions of not only the “Engineer” but also the actions of any person or organization acting on behalf of the Owner. This case arises out of a public construction contract in which Graham Contracting Ltd (“Graham”) built a multi-million dollar roadway improvement for the City of Federal Way along a stretch of Pacific Highway. The appeal was from the trial court’s granting of the City’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims by Graham for extra time and money due to delays and impacts to Graham’s construction of the Project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugo Fraga, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fraga may be contacted at hugo.fraga@acslawyers.com

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    November 02, 2020 —
    Fire damage to commercial buildings might get headlines, but water damage, whether to projects under construction or completed buildings, delivers massive financial blows to owners, developers and contractors. The impact is massive, reaching many billions of dollars per year. One water leak on the 19th floor at a construction site of a high-end apartment building in New York City resulted in $30 million in property damage and millions in delayed delivery penalties. Imagine this all-too-typical scenario: A 20-story building has thousands of pipe connections and many tens of thousands throughout the entire building. It only takes one of those joints failing, perhaps due to human oversight. Early on a Saturday morning when no one is onsite, one of the connections inside a wall begins to leak, slowly at first. In a couple hours the connection fails completely, sending a cascade of water into the building. The site is located next to a highway, so the security guards don’t hear the water flowing. The leak goes undetected until crews come back onsite on Monday morning. By that point, lower levels of the building have been inundated with thousands of gallons of water that has destroyed construction material, carpeting and electrical switchgear. It’s flowed into the elevator pits and mechanical room. Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Dycian, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Dycian may be contacted at yaron@wint.ai