BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut window 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


    California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    Residential Interior Decorator Was Entitled to Lien and Was Not Engaging in Unlicensed Contracting

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Touchdown! – The Construction Industry’s Winning Audible to the COVID Blitz

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    TxDOT: Flatiron/Dragados Faces Default Over Bridge Design Issues

    The Pandemic, Proposed Federal Privacy Regulation and the CCPA

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    ASCE Statement On White House "Accelerating Infrastructure Summit"

    Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    Solutions To 4 Common Law Firm Diversity Challenges

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes
    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

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    February 07, 2014 —
    CFO to CEO: “I have bad news, the developer on our biggest project has run out of money.” Frightening words for sure, but contractors should not overlook the bonded stop notice in situations where the construction lender seemingly has expended all construction funds. The recent case of Brewer Corporation v. Point Center Financial, Inc. 2014 WL 346636 illustrates this point. Contractors have two options at their disposal to secure payment on private works of improvement. The first is the mechanics lien. However, construction loan trust deeds are normally recorded prior to the commencement of construction and therefore have priority over mechanics liens. Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 827. Enter the bonded stop notice. The bonded stop notice requires the lender to withhold unexpended funds and, if it fails to do so, it is personally liable to the claimant for the full amount of the claim. But the stop notice also has the power of “priority” over any assignment of construction loan funds, whether before or after a stop notice is served. Civil Code § 3166, now Civil Code § 8544. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    July 28, 2016 —
    The 80-year-old Bow Tie Building in the heart of New York City’s Times Square is undergoing a major renovation of retail space, but the tens of thousands of daily passersby will not see any construction activities: A 53-ft-tall dark-green plywood wall completely hides the 167,000-sq-ft structure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alisa Zevin, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Zevin may be contacted at zevina@enr.com

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    May 23, 2022 —
    Partner Vik Nagpal and Associate Attorney Tim McNulty of the Encinitas office recently obtained a substantial victory on behalf of BWB&O’s client after a 10-day binding construction arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel of the American Arbitration Association. BWB&O’s client was sued by the Owner of a commercial office building related to a multimillion-dollar tenant improvement project in San Diego. The Owner asserted construction defect damages, delay damages, architectural negligence, fraudulent billing practices and consequential damages of $3.6 million dollars. BWB&O’s client claimed breach of contract damages against the owner for failure to pay invoices. The Owner who had substantial financial resources and a personal spite against the general contractor, unreasonably pursued the case with an extensive team of lawyers and experts. At an earlier full-day mediation, the owner rejected a reasonable settlement offer which included a settlement payment to the Owner and the client’s agreement to dismiss their affirmative claim for damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    July 11, 2022 —
    LOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest. Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility." The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law Corporation
    Mr. Hennigh may be contacted at Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    January 15, 2019 —
    It’s the holidays. A time when family and friends, and even neighbors, gather together. And nothing brings neighbors closer together than class action residential construction defect litigation. In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, Case No. B288935 (November 14, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal addressed whether neighbors can bring class action lawsuits under the Right to Repair Act. For those who are regular readers of the California Construction Law Blog you’re familiar with the Right to Repair Act codified at Civil Code sections 895 et seq. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

    December 15, 2016 —
    In Advent v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., etc. (No. H041934 filed 12/6/16), a California appeals court refused to order a subcontractor’s excess insurer to contribute to a general contractor’s excess insurer because the general contractor did not qualify as an additional insured of the subcontractor’s insurer, and the policy wording made the subcontractor’s excess insurer second level excess above the general contractor’s own excess insurance. Advent was the general contractor on a housing development and Johnson was a sub-subcontractor providing concrete on perimeter walls. A Johnson employee dispatched to retrieve plywood dumped between some of the buildings somehow fell down an open stairwell inside one of the unfinished buildings and suffered serious injury. He sued Advent and others for negligence, but could not remember how he fell. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    January 13, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday (on a Thursday) here at Construction Law Musings, Victoria Pynchon (@vickiepynchon) joins us for the 4th time. Victoria is an attorney-mediator with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City; an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California; and, a negotiation consultant and trainer world-wide. Victoria co-founded She Negotiates Training and Consulting in 2010 and writes for ForbesWoman at its She Negotiates blog. She is the author of one of my favorite books on conflict resolution, A is for A*@!#, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution reviewed at Musings here. First Let’s Talk About Anger Please raise your hand if your clients — corporate clients — are angry about the burdens of litigation. Irritated with the document “demands” and interrogatories. Frustrated about the e-discovery. Ticked off at the way opposing counsel asks them questions as if they’re lying. Hot under the collar about the mounting attorneys’ fees and the distance between the day suit was filed and the probable day on which a trial might eventually be scheduled. Simmering about the time the litigation consumes, time they’d prefer to be spending doing their actual jobs — planning for and implementing business strategies for a profitable future instead of fighting about the unprofitable past. And we’re not even talking about your clients’ anger at the defendant who has stolen their intellectual property or stopped worked at the construction site or refused to release the remaining funds in the construction loan account. And if you believe that powerful people in highly successful and profitable businesses do not fear that litigation might hurt their careers, think again. 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

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    December 31, 2014 —
    The Kiewit-Turner joint venture created to build the VA’s hospital near Denver stopped work on December 10 after the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the VA breached the contract. Kiewit-Turner claims that the VA owes it over $100 million on the project. And, given the appeals board’s recent ruling entirely against the VA, the claim may get some traction. This project has been plagued with problems from the beginning. One strange aspect of the project is the VA’s apparent unwillingness to incorporate value engineering or require the architects to redesign the project to fit within the budget. The latest budget was $582M, while the latest projections show that the project will cost more than $1 billion to complete. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com