BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design 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


    More Musings on Why I Mediate

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    $31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

    New Orleans Drainage System Recognized as Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    Insurer's Late Notice Defense Fails on Summary Judgment

    Boston-area Asbestos-Abatement Firms Face Wage and Safety Complaints

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

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

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly
    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. Drawing 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

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    August 26, 2015 —
    Apartments for very wealthy New Yorkers have remained mostly within the city’s smallest borough. Until now. The record price for a Brooklyn home broke the $15 million threshold this summer, and by now it’s widely accepted that New York’s outer boroughs are not much of a bargain, growing further out of reach for the aspiring homeowner. The rush of new construction in gentrifying neighborhoods has pushed up the price of land, and that’s caused construction costs to rise, too. Eventually, to make a profit, developers have to build luxury buildings, according to Jonathan Miller, the president of New York appraiser Miller Samuel. “We have this perfect storm,” he says. “Everybody gets the same idea at the same time, so materials and labor are at a premium. Throw in the high price of land at each locale, and you’ve got to build a luxury product.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    March 08, 2021 —
    As COVID-19 disrupts work and life as we know it, the question many contractors have is what protections are available against the inevitable project impacts and delays? Generally, construction contracts require a contractor to timely perform work until project completion or potentially face damages (liquidated or actual) and possible termination. When events occur, however, that are beyond our control (such as a national pandemic), it is important to review and understand what contract provisions or avenues are available for potential relief. 1. Review Your Contract For A Force Majeure Provision. A “force majeure” contract provision is commonly included in construction contracts, service agreements, purchase orders, etc. It typically covers events or conditions that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. These provisions, however, will vary greatly from contract to contract and may not include the language “force majeure” but rather may be included in general delay or impact clauses. For example, some common provisions include:
    • Washington State Department of Transportation Clause (2018 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction): The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all damages to any portion of the permanent or temporary Work occurring before the Physical Completion Date and shall bear all the expense to do so, except damage to the permanent Work caused by: (a) acts of God, such as earthquake, floods, or other cataclysmic phenomenon of nature, or (b) acts of the public enemy or of governmental authorities; or (c) slides in cases where Section 2-03.3(11) is applicable; Provided, however, that these exceptions shall not apply should damages result from the Contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions or to exercise sound engineering and construction practices in conducting the Work.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Watkins may be contacted at Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    July 13, 2020 —
    On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    June 08, 2020 —
    There are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases. In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects. The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive. 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

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

    May 12, 2016 —
    To Steve Yates, the best thing about his new Tesla Powerwall is that he doesn’t have to worry anymore about the lights going out during a storm. Or maybe it’s how cool an addition it is to the entryway of his house in Monkton, Vermont. “I’ve always wanted to have a backup power source,” said Yates, who was without electricity for 36 hours during Hurricane Irene in 2011. He also admires the Powerwall’s sleek white contours. “It’s kind of art-deco looking.” A year after Elon Musk unveiled the Powerwall at Tesla Motors Inc.’s design studio near Los Angeles, the first wave of residential installations has started in the U.S. The 6.4-kilowatt-hour unit stores electricity from home solar systems and provides backup in the case of a conventional outage. Weighing 214 pounds and standing about 4-feet tall, it retails for around $3,000. But hookup by a trained electrician is required, as is something called a bi-directional inverter that converts direct-current electricity into the kind used by dishwashers and refrigerators. The costs add up quickly -- which has fueled skepticism about Musk’s dream of changing the way the world uses energy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dana Hull, Bloomberg

    The Miller Act Explained

    May 21, 2014 —
    Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, goes over the nuances of the Federal Miller Act. Murai explained, “Named after John E. Miller, former Arkansas Congressman, later U.S. Senator and still later federal judge, the Miller Act was enacted in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression, to help ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers working on federal projects get paid, by requiring contractors who contract directly with the federal government on federal construction projects furnish payment and performance bonds.” Murai answered questions such as what is required under the act, who is protected, how a general contractor could protect itself from a Miller Act claim, as well as others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    September 21, 2020 —
    I discussed several of the statutory changes affecting the construction industry here at Construction Law Musings in the run-up to July 1, 2020. One of those changes, an amendment to Virginia Code Section 43-13, may add another arrow to the collection quiver of subcontractors and suppliers. As part of the previously-linked rundown, I highlighted one of the big additions in 2020, namely the amendment making those pesky clauses that let those up the payment chain from you hold money on “this or any other project” void as against public policy. The other big addition to 43-13 is the change that adds a possible civil cause of action for downstream and unpaid subcontractors and suppliers in the event that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor are not first used to pay their downstream contractors and suppliers. Prior to July 1, 2020, this statute provided criminal penalties for such behavior but did not contain the possibility of a civil penalty. The operative language for the change is as follows:
    The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director, or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure for any other purpose than paying such amounts due on the project shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project.
    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

    After Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse, Fast-Rising Replacement Emerges

    February 01, 2023 —
    A spirit of celebration was in the air last August as Pittsburgh residents cheered a 155-ft-long bulb-tee beam making its way up a narrow street to the entrance of historic Frick Park, where work was underway on a three-span prestressed concrete replacement for the 50-year-old Fern Hollow Bridge that collapsed in January. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of