BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

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

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/21/22) – 3D Printing, Sustainable Design, and the Housing Market Correction

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    White and Williams Earns National "Best Law Firm" Rankings from US News

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?
    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

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    January 06, 2016 —
    It can be a rough and tumble world out there. And in the case of public works construction in California, this includes bid disputes. California’s competitive bidding laws require that a public works contract be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.” However, as we’ve mentioned before, there are two requirements which must be satisfied for a bidder to be determined to be the lowest responsible bidder: (1) the awarded bidder’s bid must be “responsive”; and (2) the awarded bidder must be “responsible.” In a case decided this past month, DeSilva Gates Construction v. Department of Transportation, Case No. C074521 (December 14, 2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Third District addressed the first of these two requirements, whether two bids on $34 million highway widening project were responsive, which in turn involves a two-step process: (1) whether the bids were responsive or not; and (2) if not, whether the variance in the bids were “material” or “immaterial.” 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

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    November 17, 2016 —
    The Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries. Plaintiff Al Khosh (“Khosh”) was injured while performing electrical work on a project. He was employed by Myers Power Products, Inc. (“Myers”) a subcontractor for the project. Khosh sued the general contractor, Staples Construction Company, Inc. (“Staples”) to recover damages for his injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    February 05, 2015 —
    Over the past three weeks, I’ve discussed three “stages” of a construction dispute from the claim, to how to increase the pressure for payment, to the litigation. While these three steps are all too often necessary tools in your construction collection arsenal, they are expensive and time consuming. No well run construction business can or should budget for litigation. The better practice would be to engage a construction attorney early in the process and avoid the dispute altogether if possible. Unfortunately, even the best of planning can lead to the need to hire a construction lawyer for the less pleasant task of assisting you in getting paid. This post is about an alternative to the scorched earth of stage 3 of the process that can and should be at least considered either before or after the complaint or demand for arbitration has been filed. I am of course speaking about voluntary mediation. Why did I emphasize “voluntary?” Because to me mandatory mediation (as required in many construction contracts) is a bit like forced volunteerism, it is something that the parties will go through to “check a box” but will not have their hearts in it. Remember, by the time the mandatory mediation clause kicks in, the parties are likely at an impasse in their construction dispute and are ready to fight. Being forced to mediate, especially from the party seeking payment, can (and in my experience often does) make the parties just go through the motions at best and be hostile to the process at worst. Neither of these attitudes are conducive to resolving a dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    March 06, 2022 —
    Be mindful of that express warranty provision in your contract. It could result in an outcome that you did not consider or factor when submitting your proposal or agreeing to your contract amount. An express warranty could have the effect of eviscerating the argument that you performed your scope of work pursuant to the plans and specifications. In other words, the applicability of the Spearin doctrine could be rendered moot based on express warranty language in your contract that is fully within your control because you do not have to agree to that language. Under the Spearin doctrine:
    [W]hen a ‘contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specification.’ Spearin and its progeny set forth a default rule of fundamental fairness that when a general contractor requires a subcontractor to follow certain plans and specifications, the general contractor impliedly warrants that those plans and specifications are ‘free from design defects.’ Put simply, Spearin protects subcontractors from liability for simply following the general contractor’s direction and requirements. However, the implied warranty set forth in Spearin and its progeny may be overcome by express agreement. Where a general contractor and subcontractor expressly agree to allocate the risk of a defective product to the subcontractor, that express agreement must prevail over Spearin’s implied warranty. Lighting Retrofit International, LLC v. Consellation NewEnergy, Inc., 2022 WL 541156 (D. Md. 2022) (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

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    July 30, 2014 —
    The Second Circuit found that two claims arising from the same project were unrelated, creating two separate payments by the insurer for the two separate claims. Dormitory Auth. of New York v. Continental Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. 12088 (2nd Cir. June 23, 2014). In 1995, the State agency contracted with the insured architectural firm to design and oversee the construction of a new dormitory at City University of New York. Plans drawn by the architects erred in their estimate of the steel requirement. To recover losses from the resulting delay and expense, the agency sent a demand letter in May 2002 to the architects detailing the Steel Girt Tolerance issue. After the project was finished in 2001, another problem was discovered: excess accumulations of snow and ice were sliding off the building onto sidewalks a considerable distance away. The Ice Control Issue was studied during the winter of 2003-04. The conclusion was that the design of the facade failed to account for temperature variations appropriate for a building in New York. The problem could not be resolved by adding canopies, which would have been a cheaper fix. Study of the problem continued into 2005. 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

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    April 05, 2011 —

    Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

    Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

    Read the full story...

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

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    July 20, 2020 —
    The recent COVID-19 outbreak has altered life for all of us, in ways both big and small. Unprecedented restrictions relating to the pandemic have forced individuals across the globe to change the ways in which they live and work. Perhaps not surprisingly, these restrictions have also changed the way we resolve disputes. Just as virtual conferencing has become the “new normal” for family gatherings and social events, it has also become the “new normal” for everything from mediation, to oral argument, to full-blown hearings. To be sure, there are a number of advantages to conducting adversarial proceedings virtually. First and foremost, it results in substantial cost savings for the parties involved. In-person proceedings typically require significant travel expenses, including airline tickets, hotel reservations, and food and beverage stipends. The use of a virtual forum essentially eliminates these expenses, cutting costs dramatically for attorneys, clients, judges, and arbitrators alike. Virtual conferencing also affords the opportunity for increased participation from party representatives living across the country, or even across the world. While demanding work schedules often make it impossible for multiple party representatives to attend a deposition, or even a hearing, in person, virtual proceedings require much less of a time commitment. Because these virtual proceedings require participants to spend less time away from other work-related obligations, party representatives are able to attend proceedings that they may otherwise have had to miss. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Justin K. Fortescue, Zachery B. Roth and Marianne Bradley Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    July 28, 2018 —
    Infrakit, a cloud service developed by a Finnish startup company, is accelerating infrastructure projects both in Finland and, increasingly, abroad. Automatic transfer of information among parties involved in a project saves time, reduces paperwork, and facilitates the work of land surveyors. In addition to excavators, rock drills can now also be viewed on the map. The CEO and founder of DSC Finland, the supplier of Infrakit, is Teemu Kivimäki. He states that despite the name of the company changing over the years, its principles have stayed the same. Kivimäki describes the functions of the service: “The digital site plans are added to Infrakit, and they can then be viewed on a map and in a 3D view with a browser. When the working machines are also linked to the service, the user can see if the work has been executed according to plan.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi