BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering 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


    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

    Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    An Era of Legends

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Massachusetts Clarifies When the Statute of Repose is Triggered For a Multi-Phase or Multi-Building Project

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)
    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

    When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

    June 06, 2022 —
    In Maryam Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company (No. B311310, filed April 14, 2022, and certified for publication on May 5, 2022), the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District held that Maryam Ghukasian’s insurer, Aegis Security Insurance Company (“Aegis”), had no duty to defend her in an underlying lawsuit alleging she cleared land and cut trees on her neighbors’ property without their consent. The appellate court explained Ms. Ghukasian’s acts of intentionally cutting the trees and clearing the land were not accidental for purposes of insurance coverage, even if she acted on the good faith but mistaken belief the trees were on her property. Ms. Ghukasian owns a home in Glendale, California. She purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from Aegis for the policy period of June 13, 2018 to June 13, 2019 (the “Aegis Policy”). In August 2018, Ms. Ghukasian hired a contractor to clear and cut trees she believed were on her property. However, the trees were on the property of her neighbors, Vrej and George Aintablian. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gary L. LaHendro, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. LaHendro may be contacted at glahendro@hbblaw.com

    Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

    October 22, 2014 —
    Marc Stiles writing for Puget Sound Business Journal stated that “[t]he belief that contractors have been scared off by the legal liabilities that come with [condo] projects doesn't seem to hold water.” He interviewed Suzi Morris, of Lowe Enterprises, who plans on building a new condo tower in Seattle this November. Morris stated that they didn’t have any problems getting construction bids for the 24-story tower. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “The development team is trying to head off construction defect claims by planning and documenting with photos their work.” Stiles did admit that an unnamed “source in Seattle who consults on condo projects knows of two large general contracting companies that won't bid on condo projects because of” potential construction defect litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    May 22, 2023 —
    Program coordinators Katie Kohm and Peter Marino put together an amazing annual meeting last week in Vancouver. While its impossible to retread all of the ground we covered in discussing the "future of construction law," here are my top 10 take-aways: 10. Public-private partnerships may finally be taking off in the United States. P3s were slow to be pursued within the United States. According to panelists Peter Hahn, John Heuer, Sean Morley, and Lee Weintraub, this was chiefly because of the reticence of public bodies to deviate from the standard vendor model. Looking at the recent trends, it seems as though the United States--the "sleeping giant of public-private partnerships"--may finally be waking up. In 2022, a total of 29 public-private partnership projects were signed or reached financial close within the United States, representing an increase of 16% from the prior year. Thirty-eight states also now have some form of P3 enabling legislation. While we still lag behind our Canadian cousins, the future of P3s in this country is looking a little brighter. 9. The value proposition for the architecture profession is broken. Architects Lakisha Ann Woods (the CEO of AIA) and Phillip Bernstein (Associate Dean & Professor Adjunct Yale University) shared their thoughts with moderator Kelly Bundy on the challenges facing the architecture profession. The biggest issue they noted was the need to recruit qualified (and diverse) candidates into the profession. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do given the long career track (on average, it becomes 13.1 years to become a licensed architect) and the low salaries paid compared to other professions. Phillip shared that the high average starting salary for architecture grads from Yale (one of the leading programs in the country) is just $76,000. If we want to recruit the best and most innovative candidates into the field, the value proposition needs to change. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    June 06, 2018 —
    The district court accepted the magistrate's recommended ruling denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a case involving collapse. Jang v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51880 (D. Conn. March 27, 2018). After purchase of their home, the insureds' inspector found large cracks in the foundation. Liberty denied coverage, contending that the basement wall was collapsing due to settling earth or movement. The insureds' expert later found the foundation had cracks from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals in the foundation's concrete. The insureds sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practice Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. 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

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    August 26, 2019 —
    In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    May 29, 2023 —
    This month, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a new statute that caps retainage on private construction projects to five percent (5%), provides a mechanism for subcontractors to get paid their retainage prior to project completion, and allows for contractors and subcontractors to post a retainage bond and get paid their retainage early. For those interested in reading the full text of this new law, the statute can be found here. The new statute goes into effect on July 23, 2023. Under the statute, when a contractor or subcontractor considers their work under a contract subject to retainage complete, they may notify the party they contracted to perform the work for. Within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion of work, the party receiving the notice must respond with either (1) notice of acceptance of work or (2) notice of uncompleted items to the contractor or subcontractor. If the party receiving notice does not provide notice of uncompleted items within 15 days or fails to respond to the notice of completion entirely, the unpaid retainage will begin to accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1%) per month, 30 days after the initial 15-day period. However, this interest will not accrue against a contractor who has not been paid the retainage by an upper-tier contractor or owner until payment has been received, so long as that contractor has submitted its subcontractor’s notice of completion to the upper-tier contractor or owner within 30 days of receipt. Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne S. Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    September 17, 2015 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. As noted below, in order to pursue this remedy, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    October 29, 2014 —
    The trial involving the Las Vegas Harmon Hotel, which is currently being demolished piece by piece due to construction defects, is ready to begin six years after the defects were first discovered, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It’s an unusual case for multiple reasons. The trial is expected to last a year, and the number of attorneys involved in the case required chairs to be removed from the galley to accommodate lawyer tables, which are wired with monitors and microphones. In addition, “two 80-inch monitors are being installed for the jury.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal further reported that “each party will have its own technology team to display the more than 3 million digitally stored pieces of evidence.” Michael Doan, the court’s information technology director, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the “paper list of that evidence fills more than 100 document-storage boxes.” The case “involves more than $400 million in damage claims.” Construction on the Harmon Tower was stopped after a “structural engineer hired by MGM Resorts determined the building was unsafe and could topple if an earthquake of a magnitude of 7.7 were to hit Las Vegas.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of