BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield 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


    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    Home Prices on the Rise

    Domtar Update

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    A Property Boom Is Coming to China's Smaller Cities

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC Announces Leadership Changes and New Vision for Growth

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

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

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners

    Arctic Fires Are Melting Permafrost That Keeps Carbon Underground

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Commercial Construction Lenders Rejoice: The Pennsylvania Legislature Provides a Statutory fix for the “Kessler” Decision

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

    BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Not Our Territory: 11th Circuit Dismisses Hurricane Damage Appraisal Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Affirmed

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

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

    Implications for Industry as Supreme Court Curbs EPA's Authority

    Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange
    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

    Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

    April 02, 2024 —
    I was recently contacted by a commercial building owner in the process of trying to sell his building. Two years prior to this, a subcontractor had recorded a mechanics’ lien with the local County Recorder’s office in relation to the owner’s property. The subcontractor recorded the mechanics lien after the subcontractor was not paid by a prime contractor for work the subcontractor had performed on the property. Unfortunately, the subcontractor then failed to file a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien within the requisite ninety (90) day time period for filing a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanics’ lien. Since the subcontractor missed this 90 day deadline to file the mechanics lien foreclosure lawsuit, the mechanics lien expired and became unenforceable. Subject to certain exceptions, under California Civil Code Section 8460, a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics lien must be filed within ninety (90) days after the mechanics lien is recorded or the mechanics lien expires. Although the mechanics lien had expired, the title company and intended purchaser of the building and property were perhaps understandably insistent that the mechanics lien constituted a cloud on title to the property and must be removed from the official records for the property. The prospective purchaser would not buy the property unless the mechanics’ lien was removed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    April 30, 2014 —
    According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, while the Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA) reported a decrease in mortgage interest rates for existing homes, there was an increase in mortgage rates on newly built homes: “The average contract interest rate on conventional mortgages used to purchase newly built homes actually increased in March, from 3.91 to 4.21 percent, reversing an anomalous drop to under 4 percent that occurred in February.” “The average price and loan size on conventional mortgages used to purchase newly built homes also reversed previous month declines in March,” reported Eye on Housing. “The average price increased 5.4 percent to $427,200—the second highest number on record.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    May 06, 2024 —
    The Metropolitan Municipality of Lima, Peru, filed suit in federal court in Washington DC to vacate two separate arbitration awards rendered against the city in international arbitration proceedings subject to the Federal Arbitration Act. The city had contracted to build, improve, and maintain various highways in and around the city. To pay for this infrastructure, Lima agreed that the contractor would “receive revenues from existing and new toll booths.” Apparently, the City of Lima forgot how much citizens of the area loathed tolls, and, according to the court, the local public officials “quickly truckled” (how apropos for a road project!) to the pressure. As a result, revenues promised to the contractor were not forthcoming, and the city did nothing about it. The contractor initiated arbitration, and the city countered by arguing that the contractor had bribed its way into the contract. The city lost and was held in breach. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    December 26, 2022 —
    A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    April 11, 2018 —
    To understand what Toxic Mold Litigation is, it is important to first identify and understand what toxic mold is. Mold is a fungus which is essentially everywhere, and certain types of mold, known as toxic mold, may cause severe personal injuries and/or property damage. Toxic mold refers to those molds capable of producing mycotoxins which are organic compounds capable of initiating a toxic response in vertebrates. Toxic mold generally occurs because of water intrusion, from sources such as plumbing problems, floods, or roof leaks. It is this ageless life form that has spawned a new species of toxic tort claims and has had legal and medical experts debating the complex health implications that follow. Here is some information as to what toxic mold litigation is and when you should hire a lawyer for toxic mold. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vik Nagpal
    Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”

    October 30, 2023 —
    “The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury for a legal claim in a civil action.” So, isn’t the law, well, the law? Well, perhaps. Some axioms to remember in contracting are that parties are typically able to agree in a contract to anything that is lawful, and that all such lawful agreements essentially become the “law” between the parties. It is on these principles that courts issue jurisprudence which becomes binding on future litigants – for example, concerning waiver of any right to trial by jury. Hence, when a second-tier subcontractor on a federal project sought a jury for a lawsuit it had against a general contractor’s sureties, the sub was successfully rebuffed by the sureties based upon a waiver to trial by jury contained in the relevant subcontract. The court noted various matters to be considered in connection with the generally enforceable jury waiver – including the conspicuousness of the waiver (and, therefore, whether the subcontractor “knowingly” agreed to the waiver), as well as the relative bargaining power of the parties to the agreement (here, the sub was self-proclaimed to be a “leader in the construction contracting field”) – and affirmed the legality of the waiver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

    The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

    Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

    Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

    However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    June 27, 2022 —
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – ASCE strongly opposes the recent announcement from the Biden Administration to suspend the current 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax for three months. Even at the same modest figure of 18 cents per gallon for over 25 years since 1993, the motor fuel tax has represented a reliable federal revenue source for communities to fix and modernize their network of roads, bridges, and transit systems. Suspending the gas tax would result in the loss of billions in revenue from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), significantly diminishing much of the progress made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law at a time when Americans expect improvements to the nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. Replacing this lost revenue with funds from other sources is not a viable long-term solution and sets a damaging precedent. Encouraging states to follow suit will compound this bad idea and further exacerbate our nation's infrastructure funding challenges. Our transportation system, including roadways, bridge spans, and transit networks, can't rely on novel, unpredictable funding. Further, there is little guarantee that motorists will see any real relief at the pump. Gas holidays aren't price controls; the manager at the gas station still gets to set their price. Oil producers have benefited significantly in the past from previous state-level gas tax holidays. There is no mechanism to ensure that these "savings" are passed on to consumers, but there is a virtual guarantee of disrupting transportation dollars and the HTF. While it sounds like an enticing solution when pocketbooks are strained, Congress knows that a variety of factors, including plain supply and demand, affect the prices that people see at fuel stations. Now is the time to build on the momentum of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which, for the first time in decades, takes significant steps to revitalize our nation's aging infrastructure, improve public safety, strengthen our economy, and deliver well-paying jobs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of