BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    Harmon Towers Demolition Still Uncertain

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    UK Court Rules Against Bechtel in High-Speed Rail Contract Dispute

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    An Era of Legends

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    April 11, 2018 —
    The insured's suit against his broker for securing a policy with insufficient policy limits was dismissed when filed more than two years after the alleged professional negligence occurred. Pritchard v. Andy Houghton Ins. Agency, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018). Pritchard requested coverage for replacement of his property in the event of a total loss by fire. He obtained a policy from Houghton. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Texas Shortens Its Statute of Repose To 6 Years, With Limitations

    October 02, 2023 —
    Effective June 9, 2023, Texas has shortened its statute of repose from the existing 10-year statute for builders of new homes to 6-years under specific conditions. The significantly shorter statute of repose bars suits against construction contractors of detached one-and two-family homes and townhomes, filed six years after the substantial completion of such homes, where the contractor also furnished a written warranty in compliance with the statute. Notably, projects including apartments, mixed-use, and hotels are not covered by the new law. It is also noted that a grey area in the law exists as to whether condominiums will be covered by the statute. The statute of repose strictly bars the filing of any action, claim or arbitration demand regardless of when the injury was actually discovered (latent defects) and is separate and distinct from any applicable statute of limitations. The New Texas Statute of Repose Law Under the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.009, persons who construct or repair improvements to real property cannot be sued for defective or unsafe conditions of the property or deficiencies in the construction or repair of the improvement later than 10 years after substantial completion of the improvement, except in certain narrow circumstances. This statute is known as the “statute of repose.” The statute applies not only to suits for construction defects, but also personal injury, wrongful death, contribution, and indemnity. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and Roni Most, Kahana Feld Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Mr. Most may be contacted at rmost@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    September 04, 2018 —
    At the height of the Great Depression nearly one-quarter of Americans were unemployed. In response, Congress enacted a series of laws including the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs Act, which raised tariffs on foreign goods in an effort to spur domestic investment and to increase the number of jobs. Sound familiar? Background The Davis-Bacon Act Among the new laws enacted by Congress was the Davis-Bacon Act which required contractors on federal works projects to pay their workers the wages prevailing in the area where a project was located, also known as “prevailing wages,” in an effort to stem the practice of employers bringing in lower-wage workers from outside the area. The same year that the Davis-Bacon Act was enacted, California enacted its own prevailing wage law modeled after the Davis-Bacon Act and applicable to state and local public works projects. 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

    Pulling the Plug

    December 13, 2022 —
    As a contractor, you may have wondered if your contract can be terminated by the owner for cause after the project has reached substantial completion. The answer is yes. Under certain circumstances it may be permissible—or even necessary—for a project owner to terminate the contract for cause after the project has reached substantial completion. Although the rights of the parties in any case will depend in large part on the specific contract language, the fact that a project has reached substantial completion is not an absolute bar to termination for cause, particularly when the owner intends to pursue a performance-bond claim. Completion Versus Performance Following substantial completion, a contractor typically will have outstanding contractual obligations such as paying its subcontractors and suppliers, bonding off any mechanic’s liens, completing the punch list, remediating defective work, testing and commissioning equipment, providing manufacturer’s warranties and performing its own warranty obligations. Reprinted courtesy of Todd R. Regan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    November 21, 2018 —
    On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the “Zero Emissions Credit” (ZEC) program of the New York Public Service Commission is not unconstitutional. The case is Coalition for Competitive Electricity, et al. v. Zibelman, Chair of the New York Public Service Commission, et al. In effect, the ZEC program provides subsidies to qualifying New York nuclear power plants as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEC program is intended to prevent nuclear plants from being prematurely retired from generating power until suitable replacement facilities are operating. 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

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    April 20, 2016 —
    We are saddened to share the news of the loss of our longtime partner and good friend, Joseph H. Foster. Mr. Foster was a nationally recognized trial attorney who began his career at White and Williams LLP in 1958, becoming a partner in 1963, and continued to practice law, coming into the office every day, until he was hospitalized before his passing. A true giant in the Pennsylvania legal community, Joe exemplified the best of the legal profession and was widely admired and respected among the bar and bench for his lasting and impactful contributions. Mr. Foster served as the Chair of the Litigation Department and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee. During his tenure at White and Williams, he grew to become one of the most respected trial lawyers in Pennsylvania. He promoted a culture of excellence in client services and was the proverbial lawyer’s lawyer, treating his adversaries with courtesy and respect and always looking to find justice in the matters he handled. He was active in training at the firm, mentoring generations of trial lawyers and personally moving for the admission of hundreds of new attorneys at the firm, including an annual ceremony in Federal Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    November 29, 2021 —
    On September 20, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court in St. Petersburg, Florida, on behalf of a Homeowner who invited an acquaintance to his house to assist him with hanging a gutter on his roof. While he was assisting the Homeowner installing the gutter, the Plaintiff fell from a ladder and sustained a comminuted left intertrochanteric (hip) fracture. The Plaintiff was taken to the hospital, where he underwent open reduction, internal fixation of his left hip fracture. He was hospitalized for five days and released in wheelchair. He incurred more than $70,000 in medical bills and was confined to a wheelchair for two months. The Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the Homeowner alleging he improperly set up the ladder causing it to become unstable, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the premises which proximately caused his fall. The Plaintiff claimed the Homeowner breached the duty he owed the Plaintiff to provide safe and stable equipment for his use. After engaging in discovery, Mr. Guldalian moved for summary judgment arguing that because the Plaintiff could not explain in his deposition why he fell from the ladder, the Plaintiff could not establish—as a matter of law—the Homeowner was negligent, did anything, or failed to do something, that proximately caused his injury. In support of his argument, Mr. Guldalian submitted the affidavit of an investigator who inspected the ladder after the Plaintiff’s fall and found no defect in, on, or about the ladder, and affirmed that the area where the ladder was set up had no raised or defective areas which could have caused the ladder to become unstable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    March 27, 2019 —
    As demand for commercial bees used to pollinate crops (such as almond trees) has grown, so has the demand for facilities to store bees. Entering a lease agreement for the storage of live bees presents some unique issues the parties need to consider when negotiating the lease agreement. Don’t Bee Short-Sighted: Bees are often transported to different areas depending on the time of year, which means bees are not stored in the same facility all year. The lease agreement will often only provide for the storage of bees during the season when the bees are used for pollination in that particular area, but that does not mean the parties must limit the term of the lease agreement to a single season. The parties may consider entering into a lease agreement for multiple years that only applies during the pollination season each year. Bee Mindful of the Rent: Whereas the parties usually base rent in a typical commercial lease agreement off of the square footage of space the tenant uses in the premises, it often makes more sense for both parties negotiating a lease for the storage of bees to base the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes stored at the facility. Basing the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes provides the landlord with flexibility in storing the bees of multiple tenants in the same facility, and it can give the tenant flexibility with the number of bees it may need stored at the facility in any given season. With such a rental arrangement, a landlord should consider asking for a commitment from the tenant to deliver at least a certain number of beehives or colonies for storage, and the tenant should consider asking for a commitment from the landlord to reserve space in the facility for at least that same number of beehives or colonies as the tenant is giving a commitment for. Additionally, the parties will need to determine when rent will be paid. In a general commercial lease agreement, rent is usually paid monthly. With a bee storage lease agreement, however, a landlord may want to require the tenant to pay all of the rent for the season upon delivery of the bees, and the landlord may also want the tenant to pay a percentage of the rent to reserve space in the facility prior to delivery of the bees. This allows the landlord to get an early indication of what space in the facility it will have available in the facility for other tenants given the somewhat flexible rental arrangement of the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com