BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

    Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    Enhanced Geothermal Energy Could Be the Next Zero-Carbon Hero

    Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Nancy Conrad Recognized in Lehigh Valley Business 2024 Power in Law List

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    Chambers USA Names Peckar & Abramson to Band 1 Level in Construction Law; 29 P&A Lawyers Recognized as Leading Attorneys; Six Regions and Government Contracts Practice Recognized

    Construction Up in United States

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

    Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

    A Retrospective As-Built Schedule Analysis Can Be Used to Support Delay

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites
    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 Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    January 13, 2014 —
    Stephen Palley, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C. area who was recognized in 2013 as a “DC Super Lawyer” for his work in construction litigation, has open his own firm, Palley Law, PLLC. Mr. Palley said that his practice “remains focused on addressing insurance issues faced by construction industry clients.” He also noted that “few firms focus specifically on construction insurance, so a significant part of my practice involves helping other lawyers with individual projects or disputes for their clients.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    June 28, 2021 —
    On May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.” By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    November 30, 2017 —
    Dover, Del. (AP) -- An earthquake has jolted the Mid-Atlantic region of the East Coast, but there are no immediate reports of damage or injuries. The U.S. Geological Survey says the 4.1 magnitude quake struck just after 4:45 p.m. Thursday, and was centered about 6 miles (10 kilometers) east-northeast of Dover, Delaware. It was felt as far away as Baltimore. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Associated Press (Randall Chase), Bloomberg

    Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

    March 04, 2024 —
    Legislation was recently introduced to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives proposing the creation of the first-ever Workforce Housing Tax Credit (WHTC) for middle-income housing developments. Similar to the existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the WHTC would provide additional federal income tax credits to housing development projects for tenants making between 60% and 100% of Area Median Income (AMI). The allocation of WHTC would be based on a competitive bid process and awarded to developments over a 15-year credit period (as opposed to a 10-year credit period for LIHTC). Developments receiving allocations of WHTC will be subject to affordability requirements during the 15-year credit period and subsequent extended use period of at least 15 years. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts

    October 07, 2024 —
    If you have used a ConsensusDocs® construction agreement or another industry association construction agreement for one of your projects, you are accustomed to seeing the laws of the state where the construction project is located as the governing law. There are good reasons for the laws of the state where the project is located to govern the construction agreement for the project. Even if not headquartered in the state, the parties have a presence there by virtue of their participation in the project in the state. Personnel and records that may be needed to resolve a claim may be located in the state. If there are experts that need to be engaged, they will likely need to visit the site. These reasons of efficiency and convenience, alone, may justify the parties’ decision to select the project state’s laws to govern their construction contract. However, there is also the policy interest of the project state, whose laws may even mandate that the project state’s laws govern construction contracts for in-state projects and that the parties resolve their disputes in state as well. Several states have laws that require construction disputes for projects in the state to be resolved under its laws and/or litigated or arbitrated in the state. Some states require only that its laws govern and do not also require that the dispute resolution take place in the state, but some require both – that its laws govern and the disputes be resolved there. There may be different triggers as to when the statute applies. For example, in some states, the statute applies to any construction contract for a project in the state. In others, the law may only be triggered if one of the parties is domiciled in the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Davies, Jones Walker LLP
    Ms. Davies may be contacted at vdavies@joneswalker.com

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    July 01, 2014 —
    Deaths from a building collapse in Chennai, India is currently at nineteen, while forty-two people have been rescued, according to the New York Times, and “40 others are feared trapped in the debris,” reported BBC News. The Chennai police arrested six people, “including the partners of the construction company, the architect and the structural engineer, and charged them with criminal negligence in connection with the building collapse there,” according to P. Subramniam, a Chaennai police officer, as quoted by the New York Times. "It appears they have not adhered to approved plans,” Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa told BBC News. “The building appears to have serious structural defects." Building collapses are frequent in India, and most are “blamed on lax safety and substandard materials,” reported BBC News. The New York Times pointed out that “municipal authorities rarely condemn buildings even when they appear to have dangerous defects.” Regardless, “even unsafe buildings attract people who want to live in them because the competition for shelter is fierce among millions of city residents.” Read the full story, New York Times... Read the full story, BBC News... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

    May 08, 2023 —
    Under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq., contractors hired to work on federal construction projects are required to furnish payment bonds in order to ensure payment to certain persons that provide labor for the project. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a published decision clarifying the type of work that qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company (issued April 26, 2023). In that case, the U.S. Department of Defense hired Forney Enterprises (Forney) as the prime contractor on a renovation project at the Pentagon. Forney retained Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) to provide the required Miller Act payment bond. Forney then entered into a subcontract with Elliott Dickson (Dickson), a professional engineer, to work as a project manager on the contract. Dickson primarily supervised labor on the site, but also performed other tasks, including logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself. Dickson’s work required him to be onsite on a daily basis. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Hummel, Seyfarth
    Mr. Hummel may be contacted at jhummel@seyfarth.com