BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    Flint Water Suits Against Engineers Will Go to Trial, Judge Says

    Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    State-Fed Fight Heats Up Over Building Private Nuclear Disposal Sites

    Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action

    2023 Construction Law Update

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    Unlicensed Contractor Shoots for the Stars . . . Sputters on Takeoff

    OIRA Best Practices for Administrative Enforcement and Adjudicative Actions

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware
    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. Leveraging 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

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    December 30, 2015 —
    David M. McClain of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC reported on the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the above mentioned case regarding the Vallagio condominiums developed by Metro Inverness, LLC. McClain concluded, “As a builder, the moral of the story here is that you need not rely on the Colorado Legislature to protect your ability to arbitrate construction defect claims asserted against you by homeowners associations. All you need to do is to include within your declaration a valid and enforceable declarant consent provision requiring your consent to amend out of the declaration the arbitration requirement for construction defect claims.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    April 08, 2014 —
    We all understand how idle conversation and gossip can negatively impact relationships and workplace morale. But can they cause a school district to lose their lawyer? It is black-letter law that confidential communications between attorney and client are privileged, inadmissible, and cannot be later used against that client by third parties. However, under many circumstances confidential communications that occurred just outside the traditional attorney-client relationship can result in disqualification of counsel. In an environment when many educators become lawyers and education lawyers go from job to job and from client to client, care must be given to the context in which such communications occur. I. The Ethical Duty of Confidentiality Is Broader Than the Attorney-Client Privilege. Generally, every lawyer has a duty to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the attorney and client. (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal. App .4th 294, 309; Evid. Code § 954.) The attorney-client privilege is statutory and permits the holder of the privilege to prevent disclosure, including testimony by the attorney, as to communications that are subject to the privilege. (Evid. Code §§ 952-955.) The attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality under Business & Professions Code section 6068(e) is broader than the attorney-client privilege. It extends to all information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be kept secret or the disclosure of which would likely be harmful or embarrassing to the client. (See Cal. State Bar Formal Opns. No. 1993-133, 1986-87, 1981-58, and 1976-37; Los Angeles County Bar Association Formal Opns. Nos. 456, 436, and 386. See also In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 940-41.) However, if the status of the person and the purpose of the conversation is unclear to the attorney, highly negative outcomes may result. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Rolen may be contacted at grolen@hbblaw.com

    Boots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction Clients

    May 02, 2022 —
    This past week, I attended the Construction Law and Public Contracts seminar in Charlottesville, VA and also a breakfast meeting of the Richmond chapter of the Associated General Contractors of Virginia. Reflecting on this past week, I realized that my membership and participation in both of these great organizations (I am a member of the Board of Governors for the state bar section and the Executive Committee for the Richmond District of AGC-VA) not only provides great marketing and friendship opportunities, participation helps my construction clients in ways that a singular online marketing and interactive path would not (even with the growth of social media). Among other benefits (including case digests and the insightful newsletter), being a member of the Construction Law and Public Contracts section helps my clients in numerous ways, not the least of which is the ability to network and gain the perspective of many of the great construction attorneys here in Virginia. The ability to bounce legal thoughts off of others for their perspectives gives me the benefit of their experiences and, importantly to my clients, allows me to be more efficient in my research and arguments because of their insight. Additionally, as a solo construction attorney, knowing other attorneys in other parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia gives me a network of trusted lawyers to whom I can safely and confidently refer a case where a conflict exists or other factors (like geography) make such a referral a benefit to a construction firm in need of legal assistance on a particular matter. 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

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    June 10, 2015 —
    An interesting construction case just came out from the California Court of Appeals for the Second District this past month – Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B248320 (May 19, 2015) – which discusses a number of intertwining issues that can be faced by contractors in California and concludes with a result that I’m not sure I quite agree with. Among the issues discussed by the Court of Appeal were:
    • The application of the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031 which: (1) precludes a contractor from making a claim for payment for work performed; and (2) requires a contractor to disgorge all monies received for work performed, if the contractor was not properly licensed at all times that work was performed;
    • The impact of an unsatisfied judgment against one contractor on the license of another “related” contractor; and
    • Whether a stipulated judgment providing for payments over time is an unsatisfied final judgment under the Licensing Law.
    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

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    October 01, 2014 —
    The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to State Farm based upon the insured's alleged concealment of the truth when questioned about a fire that destroyed his home. Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17312 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2014). A fire destroyed the insured's home. He reported the loss to State Farm, who assigned Rob Raker to investigate the claim. Coverage was denied because State Farm contended that the "Intentional Acts" and "Concealment or Fraud" conditions of the homeowner's policy were violated. The insured sued State Farm. The district granted summary judgment to State Farm after finding that some of the answers the insured gave to Raker were misleading and material. The court determined that the insured failed to identify multiple tax liens and judgments when questioned about his financial status. 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

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    June 11, 2014 —
    On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Mann may be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    October 01, 2013 —
    The recession hit the Las Vegas area hard, and so residents are now relieved as the economy recovers. During the recession, the area lost more than 70,000 construction jobs. Those who remained still found it hard t find work. But KVVU, Las Vegas, spoke with Fredy Salguero, a construction worker who still finds getting a steady paycheck a challenge. “You work like one, two, three days a week, and before you were able to work six or seven.” The signs are good that better times will be coming for Mr. Salguero. Housing prices are up 30 percent and there are $7 million of commercial projects on the Las Vegas Strip. With the nation’s highest unemployment rate, Nevada needs the help. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    January 18, 2021 —
    Creating a conscious and robust safety culture is essential to the bottom line. A history of, and reputation for, stringent safety protocols will help contractors win more bids and reduce potential exposure to costly fines. According to OSHA, one out of every five worker deaths is construction-related. Non-fatal construction-related injuries are rising. Now is not the time to be complacent, even for contractors with a clean, or relatively clean, safety record. Situations are changing and, in some cases, better, safer and more efficient options are becoming available. There are three areas of concern that deserve construction executives’ close attention. Safety Glasses or Face Shield Concerns in the Wake of COVID-19 Facial and eye injuries can occur any time a worker is nailing, cutting, grinding, welding, working with concrete or handling hazardous chemicals. Now with COVID-19 protocols requiring face coverings, there is an unanticipated aggravation: fogged safety glasses. Reprinted courtesy of Deb Hilmerson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of