BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractor
    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


    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

    Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

    The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    Addressing the Defective Stucco Crisis

    Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Naples, Florida, Is Getting So Expensive That City Workers Can’t Afford It

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice
    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

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    June 05, 2017 —
    There has been a perception among some litigators that arbitration is more expensive than court due to several factors. Among them:
    • The “upfront” costs are higher in that filing fees for arbitration exceed those in court. Arbitrators are paid, whether hourly or a flat rate, and the three arbitration panels can become very expensive.
    • Some arbitration clauses preserve statutory discovery rights, basically defeating the advantage of a simplified arbitration process. Discovery wars are extremely expensive. Depositions are the most costly of discovery, and in arbitration, as opposed to court, depositions are limited or do not exist.
    • Some arbitration clauses integrate the statutory rules of civil procedure, making arbitration almost equivalent to litigation. These types of clauses do the parties no favors.
    These notions are all dispelled in a recent American Arbitration Association (AAA) study comparing the length of time in court, based on published federal court statistics, to the length of time in arbitration, based on data from the AAA. The study demonstrates that federal courts take much longer to resolve cases by trial and appeal than arbitration by AAA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    July 01, 2019 —
    The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    February 28, 2018 —
    As Dwight Schrute of hit NBC show “The Office” said, “identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!” In response, Congress has passed a variety of legislation over the years aimed at curbing identity theft. One such piece of legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as amended by corollary acts, prohibits the printing of more than the last 5 digits of the credit card number or the credit card number’s expiration date on any sales receipt. Anyone who “willfully fails to comply with [the requirements] is liable to that consumer” for statutory or actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and potential punitive damages. But is a statutory violation of the FCRA alone a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing? No, says the Ninth Circuit. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II , Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Five Frequently Overlooked Points of Construction Contracts

    October 18, 2021 —
    There is no shortage of articles addressing the key points of construction contracts. Just enter that phrase into any internet search engine and you will find plenty. It should go without saying that a construction contract should be in writing, it should clearly identify the scope of work to be performed and the sums to be paid for that work, and it should address the parties’ rights and responsibilities with regard to termination or suspension of the contract, correcting defective work, and handling claims and disputes—just to name a few. Of course, these items should receive their due consideration. Too often, however, other important aspects of the construction contract get shortchanged. This article aims the spotlight on five often overlooked aspects of construction contracts. Project Schedules Surprisingly, many construction contracts pay little attention to a central component of any construction project: the project schedule. Many contracts provide the dates of commencement and substantial completion but not much else. With the frequent use of project management techniques such as the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the associated software, it is easier than ever to identify which tasks should be prioritized and identify potential areas of delay. The owner’s contract with the general contractor should clearly define the scheduling methods used and provide measures to keep the parties informed of the progress of the work. By including basic scheduling requirements in the contract documents—such as the submission of “Baseline Project Schedules” (consistent with the contract time provisions), “Schedule Progress Updates” (comparing the progress of the work against the Baseline Project Schedule), and “Schedule Recovery Plans” (when Schedule Project Updates indicate projected delays)—the parties can avoid or reduce disputes over project delays that often lead to litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

    Experts: Best Bet in $300M Osage Nation Wind Farm Dispute Is Negotiation

    March 11, 2024 —
    Nearly two months after a federal judge ruled that renewables developer Enel Green Power North America must deconstruct 84 land-based wind turbines because it did not secure mineral rights on Osage Nation land in northern Oklahoma, two energy sector attorneys say the unit of an Italy-based company must negotiate with the tribe. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Tyson, Engineering News-Record Mr. Tyson may be contacted at tysond@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    February 23, 2017 —
    A key component of Australia’s biggest public transport infrastructure project—Sydney’s $6.3-billion Metro North West—is the subject of a critical and detailed technical report describing how an elevated viaduct span failed at a stitch joint between two precast segments during construction last September. Project officials say the affected span, which did not suffer a progressive collapse, has since been removed and its replacement fast-tracked to avoid further delays. Little additional detail was provided. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Webb, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    April 28, 2014 —
    In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    July 25, 2022 —
    Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com