BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expert
    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


    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    Foreign Entry into the United States Construction, Infrastructure and PPP Markets

    Minimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10

    Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Found In South Dakota

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    Supreme Court Upholds Prevailing Wage Statute

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    OSHA Joins the EEOC in Analyzing Unsafe Construction Environments

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

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

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

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

    Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts­ –Effective January 1, 2024
    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

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    April 26, 2021 —
    Subcontractor claims happen. When those subcontractor claims are prompted by owner actions or responsibilities, the general contractor must always be vigilant to plan for and work to avoid a two-front war in which the general contractor is pushing the owner for recovery while at the same time disputing the subcontractor’s entitlement. Cooperation between the general contractor and the subcontractor and avoiding that two-front war can be accomplished through pass-through claims and ideally liquidating agreements. A pass-through claim is a claim by the subcontractor who has suffered damages by the owner with whom it has no contract, presented by the general contractor. A liquidating agreement or subcontract “liquidating language” goes a step further than simply a pass-through claim by “liquidating” the general contractor’s liability for the subcontractor’s claim and limiting the general contractor’s liability to the value recovered against the owner. The distinction between pass-through claims generally and use of liquidating agreements or language is described in greater detail below. Pass-through subcontractor claims are routine in construction and an important, common sense approach to deal with ever-present changes and the unexpected that can have cost and time implications. Despite the common sense basis for subcontractor pass-through claims, there are important legal considerations that must be addressed, and critical planning required, starting with the subcontract clauses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    July 28, 2018 —
    Bad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA. The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    March 16, 2020 —
    Shortly after posting the blog article “Design-Assist an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry,” I received an email from Brian Perlberg, the Executive Director and Senior Counsel for ConsensusDocs. He brought two ConsensusDocs forms to my attention: ConsensusDocs 541 Design Assist Addendum and ConsensusDocs 300 Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA). In the ConsensusDocs model of “design-assist,” the lead design professional retains design responsibility but benefits from input and consultation from the construction team during design development. By contrast, in the design-build project delivery method, the constructor assumes design responsibility and liability for either the entire project design (design-build) or just a component of the design (delegated design). The ConsensusDocs 541 document goal is to provide “accurate information concerning program, quality, cost, constructability and schedule from all parties.” It provides a range of standard and optimal services during design development that essentially shifts the curve of selecting the construction manager (CM) and most importantly, special trade contractors, to much earlier in the process, perhaps as soon as the owner’s program is developed. This opens a world of possibilities for the design and construction team to collaborate early and often. The design professional, however, does not abdicate its design responsibility or authority in this process. The ultimate goal is to end the all-too-common wasteful cycle of design and redesign that is common in construction projects.[1] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    April 19, 2022 —
    MENOMONEE FALLS, Wis. (April 18, 2022) – Three years ago when Marc Maguire, assistant professor of construction programs at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, started investigating a new stranded wire product for bridge girder reinforcing he thought the best strands for bridge construction were the industry standard 7-wire strands. After running a multitude of analyses, Maguire and student researchers found that 19-wire 1-1/8 in. diameter strands outperform the typical 7-wire 1-1/6 in. diameter strands and allow bridges to reach unprecedented lengths. Further tests conducted by the Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction with the help of Enerpac hydraulic tools examined the bond strength, force transfer, and development length of the 19-wire strands. "Traditionally, 19-wire strands are not often used in the U.S. because they are not widely available and they are much larger than standard strands," said Maguire. "We wanted to show that there was an alternative option to the common 7-wire strand--one that can perform at the same level, if not better." About Enerpac Enerpac is a global market leader in high pressure hydraulic tools, controlled force products, portable machining, on-site services and solutions for precise positioning of heavy loads. As a leading innovator with a 110-year legacy, Enerpac has helped move and maintain some of the largest structures on earth. When safety and precision matters, elite professionals in industries such as aerospace, infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, oil & gas and power generation rely on Enerpac for quality tools, services and solutions. For more information, visit www.enerpac.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

    May 25, 2020 —
    We all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams. The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic. Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    January 09, 2015 —
    In lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.” So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.” Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    May 12, 2016 —
    In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    October 19, 2017 —
    Does your construction contract require you to arbitrate (instead of litigate) disputes arising out of the contract? If so, and you want to arbitrate, you do NOT want to do anything inconsistent or adverse with your right to arbitrate. Arbitration can be waived and you do not want arbitration to be waived if you believe this is the best forum to resolve your construction dispute. For instance, actively participating in a lawsuit through the prosecution or defense of issues in the lawsuit is certainly inconsistent with your right to arbitrate. This will result in a waiver of your right to compel arbitration. In a non-construction dispute—a dispute involving a law firm and its former partner—the law firm sued the partner. Chaikin v. Parker Waichman LLP, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2165b (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). There was a partnership agreement that required disputes to be resolved by arbitration. The law firm sued the partner claiming he violated a previously entered employment agreement that did not require arbitration. When the partner counterclaimed, the law firm claimed that the counterclaim must be compelled to arbitration because the counterclaim arose out of the partnership agreement that required arbitration. Guess what? The trial court actually compelled the counterclaim to arbitration! Crazy! Clearly, any employment agreement and partnership agreement were intertwined such that the dispute would involve the same set of facts and any claims would have a significant relationship to the partnership agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com