BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    What Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square Feet

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

    Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    The Argument for Solar Power

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Los Angeles and Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2022

    10 Safety Tips for General Contractors

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

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

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

    Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia
    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. Drawing 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

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Illinois Attorney General has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that two connected firms took money from homeowners and then failed to perform the contracted work. One of the three defendants, Chris Bidigare, was an owner of agent of both Fairway Construction and Maintenance Services, LLC, and Rock Construction Management, LLC.

    In once case, according to the article on the OakPark Patch, one homeowner provided a $111,000 down payment, only to have the company cancel the job and refuse to return the money. One homeowner was told by Fairway that she should contact their insurance provider. The insurance provider told her that Fairway’s insurance had been cancelled due to non-payment.

    The suit seeks to bar the three defendants from working in home repair in Illinois.

    Read the full story…

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

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    March 22, 2018 —
    It is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract. When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800 et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    October 11, 2021 —
    We have often discussed payment and performance bonds here at Construction Law Musings, most often in the context of payment bond claims relating to federal and state-owned. construction projects. A late 2020 case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court examined what happens after such a claim, in this case, based upon a developer’s subdivision bonds, is made and negotiations commence between the surety and the claimant. Specifically, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim. In the Ramsgate case, Surety provided two separate subdivision subcontract bonds to Ramsgate. Pursuant to those bonds and the indemnity clause of its indemnity agreement, the Surety sought reimbursement of its $80,000.00 settlement payment to the local building authority that it paid to resolve what was originally a claim for over $420,000.00 by the City. The project was started in 2002 and after many years of failures to complete (according to the City of Suffolk), the City made its claim for expenses in 2017. Ramsgate claimed that it completed the subdivisions in 2003. 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

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    November 15, 2021 —
    The following is a statement by Dennis D. Truax, P.E., President, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): WASHINGTON, DC. – It is a great day for the nation as the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), fulfilling President Biden's vision with a historic piece of legislation that will have monumental impacts on the economy, public safety, global competitiveness, and each American's well-being. Passage of this five-year, $1.2 trillion bill proves once again that the country can lead with infrastructure. With this legislation, the federal government will restore their critical partnership with cities and states to modernize our nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, drinking water pipes, school facilities, broadband, ports, airports and more. Without a strong federal partner, local projects that are community lifelines have hung in the balance, oftentimes being paused or outright cancelled due to funding uncertainties. When this happens, American households and businesses are the ones who pay the price. The IIJA is the culmination of decades of advocacy by American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) members who worked tirelessly to educate Congress about the role infrastructure plays in supporting the economy and our quality of life. ASCE's Infrastructure Report Cards have sounded the alarm on our nation's infrastructure conditions since 1998, with new reports being released every four years. While all categories of infrastructure have been the cause of some concerns, the common denominator behind each category's struggles has been a backlog of projects, overdue maintenance, and a need for resilience. This bill includes investments to repair and modernize these critical assets for almost all of the 17 categories in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, which assigned our nation's infrastructure a cumulative grade of 'C-'. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    January 15, 2019 —
    Black & Veatch announced in December the successful conclusion of a 60-mile-log, non-stop, proof-of-concept drone-based inspection flight conducted by a remote pilot in a command center miles away in rural Illinois. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
    Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com

    Contractual Setoff and Application When Performance Bond Buys Out of its Exposure

    July 02, 2024 —
    The theory of “setoff” is an important theory in construction disputes. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently provided worthy discussion on contractual setoffs:
    Setoffs in contract claims are governed by [Florida Statute] section 46.015(2), which provides that if a plaintiff has released “any person in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shall [setoff] this amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled at the time of rendering judgment.” The setoff statute intends to prohibit plaintiffs from getting double recoveries.
    A setoff requires that settling and non-settling parties be jointly and severally liable. The settled damages must also be the same damages for which the setoff is sought; stated differently, a setoff is not proper where the trial damages to be setoff are separate and distinct from the settled damages.
    Close Construction, LLC v. City of Riviera Beach Utility Special District, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D1184d (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (internal citations omitted). 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

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    March 28, 2012 —

    Year-end economic indicators demonstrate that private commercial construction may be increasing in 2012, primarily as demand grows for new projects built in the United States.

    According to an article in Businessweek, the Architecture Billings Index held at 52 in December, indicating a modest expansion in the market. The American Institute of Architects said that the commercial and industrial component of the number climbed to 54.1 in December, the highest in 10 months.

    The monthly survey of U.S.-based architecture firms is one of the main indicators of nonresidential construction, and these numbers suggest that modest improvement may be on the horizon.

    The information is confirmed by data from the Census Bureau that shows that spending on lodging, office, commercial and manufacturing buildings grew 8.2 percent in November to $9.2 billion from a year ago. These types of commercial and industrial projects are historically canaries in the mine and are usually the first part of the industry to improve as the economy expands.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    May 20, 2015 —
    The San Francisco Chronicle reported that “[o]ne of the steel rods anchoring the tower of the new Bay Bridge eastern span has failed a key integrity test, suggesting it became corroded and broke during years when it was soaking in water.” Hundreds of other rods have also been steeped in water, which raises concerns about how stable the bridge might be during a major earthquake. Gareth Lacy, a Transportation Agency spokesperson, told the Chronicle that “[t]hey are investigating why one seismic rod at the base at the tower moved when it was pulled by the machine,” Lacy said. “It did not carry the expected load, and the next step is to remove it to fully investigate its condition.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of