BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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


    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    Ambush Elections are Here—Are You Ready?

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    Following My Own Advice

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

    Savera Sandhu Joins Newmeyer Dillion As Partner

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Claim for Vandalism Loss Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry

    Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Everybody Is Going to End Up Paying for Texas' Climate Crisis

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower
    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

    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    August 10, 2017 —
    Earlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care). The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    August 24, 2020 —
    In prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed. Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Newmeyer Dillion Partner Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Named One of Orange County's 500 Most Influential by Orange County Business Journal

    January 25, 2021 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that partner Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer has been selected to the Orange County Business Journal's fifth annual "OC 500 Directory of Influence" list. The 2020 list recognizes the 500 most influential leaders who have made a positive mark on Orange County's business community over the last year. Located in the Newport Beach office, Schotemeyer's practice areas include, Real Estate Litigation, Construction Operations and Litigation, Business Litigation and Labor & Employment. Additionally he provides risk management and legal advice to companies without dedicated in-house legal counsel. A seasoned litigator, he leverages his litigation experience to advise clients, including C-Level executives, regarding potentially litigious situations that touch their business operations and his practice areas. "Dutch's deep knowledge and experience as in-house counsel has informed his business-first approach to complex legal disputes and made him an invaluable resource to the Orange County business community," said Firm Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "We are pleased that Dutch's contributions to the community have been recognized by Orange County Business Journal." Schotemeyer rejoined the firm in September after serving as Vice President and Associate General Counsel for William Lyon Homes, Inc., and Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Taylor Morrison. While at William Lyon Homes, he was named 2019 "General Counsel Rising Star" by the Orange County Business Journal. The full "OC 500 Directory of Influence" list was distributed in a special December supplement. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    November 07, 2022 —
    In Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2022 PA Super. 171, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) upheld an award of judgment on the pleadings from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Trial Court). The Superior Court found that Pennsylvania’s 12-year Statute of Repose for improvements to real property (Statute of Repose) began to run upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy following original construction of the home in 2003—not from the completion of repairs to the home that continued through 2008. The underlying cause of action involved a home constructed by Moser Builders, Inc. (Moser) in 2003. The certificate of occupancy for the home was issued on August 13, 2003. Matthew Venema and Liza Squires (collectively, Venema) purchased the property from the original owners in 2004. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    February 16, 2017 —
    What is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond. 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

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    January 22, 2013 —
    Austin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million. The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects." Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    June 08, 2020 —
    The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been sudden and severe. Worldwide, populations are dealing with a public health crisis, which has abruptly impacted the economy. As cases continue to increase across the United States, both the federal government and state governments, including California, are directing people to “shelter in place” and “socially distance” from each other in an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. These orders have generally shut down daily life except for “essential” businesses. As a direct result, the economy has come to an abrupt halt and many businesses have been forced to close or significantly reduce their operations. Concern for this economic impact is, in part, due to the speed and severity with which it has affected so many industries. With the current economic conditions, there is much speculation that bankruptcy filings, among not only individuals, but small businesses, will see a sudden increase in the coming months. Experts agree that filings will increase, the only question is when. Because of COVID-19’s economic impact, it is important that businesses make an assessment now, regarding their needs, assets, and liabilities, so they can best prepare to survive COVID-19, or to take proactive steps in preparing to enter bankruptcy or wind down. In making this assessment, one of the questions to ask is whether the business can survive with quick financing, to help bridge the gap between the current operating conditions and their return to normal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
    Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

    Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage

    May 18, 2020 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court (No. S244737, filed 4/6/20) (Montrose III), the California Supreme Court held that, as between excess insurers at differing levels of coverage, a rule of “vertical exhaustion” or “elective stacking” applies, whereby the insured may access any excess policy once it has exhausted other excess policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The Court limited the rule to excess insurance, stating that “[b]ecause the question is not presented here, we do not decide when or whether an insured may access excess policies before all primary insurance covering all relevant policy periods has been exhausted.” Montrose manufactured the insecticide DDT in Torrance from 1947 to 1982. In 1990, the state and federal governments sued Montrose for environmental contamination and Montrose entered into partial consent decrees agreeing to pay for cleanup. Montrose claimed to have expended in excess of $100 million doing so, and asserted that its future liability could exceed that amount. 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