BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

    In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/22/24) – Federal Infrastructure Money, Hotel Development Pipelines, and Lab Space Construction

    No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

    Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    Spotting Problem Projects

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Five Types of Structural Systems in High Rise Buildings

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Henderson Engineers Tests AI for Building Systems Design with Torch.AI

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation
    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

    Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits

    January 19, 2017 —
    Homeowners on Jan. 6 added another lawsuit to the list pending against Millennium Partners, developer of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower, located in San Francisco’s South-of-Market district. The suit alleges that, as early as 2009, the developers knew the $350-million condo building was sinking faster than expected. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    July 13, 2017 —
    The City of Seattle’s City Purchasing & Contracting Services recently revised its General Special Provisions for City construction contracts to add new “Acceptable Worksite” language. The City indicates that the purpose of the provisions is “to ensure that City construction worksites are respectful and appropriate, including prohibiting bullying, hazing, and other similar behaviors.” An “Acceptable Worksite” is defined as a worksite “that is appropriate, productive, and safe work for all workers” and “free from behaviors that may impair production, and/or undermine the integrity of the work conditions including but not limited to job performance, safety, productivity, or efficiency of workers.” Prohibited behaviors under the new specification provisions include persistent offensive conduct and language, hazing, offensive jokes about race, gender, or sexuality, assigning undesirable tasks or unskilled work to trained apprentices and journey-level workers, refusal to hire based on race, gender, or sexuality, and references to or requests for immigration status. The new program also includes monitoring, response, and enforcement of the provisions by City Purchasing and Contracting Services employees. Finally, the language must also be incorporated into all sub-tier contracts on City projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    October 26, 2017 —
    In Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation. In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    April 20, 2020 —
    “Effective tomorrow … the City is suspending all regular activity at construction sites in Boston.” This was just one of the surprises that greeted contractors last week. Contractors and owners with projects across the country are scrambling to comply with mandated governmental suspensions. Project participants should begin contingency planning for possible project shutdowns. Reacting to Suspension Your legal rights and remedies will be largely determined by your contract and the laws applicable to it. But some basic principles will be applicable depending on the source of the suspension. Suspension by the Owner: An owner work suspension suggests review of the contract’s suspension of work clause. Federal contractors would look to the FAR Suspension of Work clause, FAR 52.242-14, but that is applicable if the suspension is by the Contracting Officer; the US would argue that a systemic suspension was a sovereign act and outside the FAR clause. Contractors for private work and state or municipal work may have contractual suspension of work clauses. At least some suspension clauses provide relief for time and money. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson attorneys Curtis W. Martin, Patrick J. Greene and Levi W. Barrett Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    September 17, 2014 —
    The New Jersey Law Journal reported that Peter Cammarano III, a former Hoboken, New Jersey, mayor, was disbarred after admitting “four years ago that he took $25,000 in bribes from a federal informant in exchange for promising his help in getting approval for a high-rise.” Cammarano “was one of 44 public officials and rabbis arrested in July 2009 as part of a massive federal investigation, known as Operation Bid Rig, into public corruption and money laundering operations.” The Disciplinary review board had recommended a three year suspension, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected that recommendation. “An elected official who sells his office—who offers favored treatment in exchange for money—betrays a solemn public trust,” Justice Barry Albin wrote for the court, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. “This form of corruption is corrosive to our democracy and undermines public confidence in honest government, and its rippling pernicious effects are incalculable.” “I believe the Disciplinary Review Board’s decision was right,” Joseph Jr. Hayden, Cammarano’s attorney, told the New Jersey Law Journal. “There were sufficient mitigating factors to justify only a suspension.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    May 13, 2014 —
    A home in New York’s Hamptons on Further Lane, where comedian Jerry Seinfeld and hedge-fund manager Steven A. Cohen own estates, is up for auction in what will be one of the area’s biggest foreclosure sales. More than $10.5 million is owed on the 1.8-acre (0.7-hectare) property at 80 Further Lane in East Hampton, according to Daniel Murphy, the Riverhead, New York-based attorney who is scheduled to conduct the sale on June 10. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    October 21, 2019 —
    Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
    Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com