BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking 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 casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield 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


    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    NYC Landlord Accused of Skirting Law With Rent-Free Months Offer

    Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building

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

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Texas Legislative Update

    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    ABC Safety Report: Construction Companies Can Be Nearly 6 Times Safer Than the Industry Average Through Best Practices

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

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

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

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

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

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

    April 06, 2016 —
    In City Of El Centro v. David Lanier (State Building And Construction Trades Council Of California, AFL-CIO), the 4th appellate district upheld by a 2-1 majority the constitutionality of Labor Code section 1782, which prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a public construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the state prevailing wage laws. As we wrote on this topic back in 2012 (See alert here), charter cities are governed by a municipal constitution and may make and enforce its own ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs (i.e., the ‘home rule’ doctrine), as opposed to general law cities, which must comply with the state laws such as the Public Wage Rate Act (requiring municipalities to pay prevailing wages). The California Supreme Court previously held in State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista that the ‘home rule’ rule permits charter cities not to pay prevailing wages to its contract workers on locally funded public works because such determination is a municipal affair and not a statewide concern. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Sarah A. Marsey, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    February 22, 2018 —

    One insurer's refusal to defend based upon its "other insurance" provision ultimately meant the insurer had to pay all of the insured's defense costs. Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2018 Wis. App. LEXIS 51 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

    Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) was a government agency that provided water reclamation and flood management services to the city. From March 1, 1998 to February 20, 2008, MMSD contracted with United Water Services Milwaukee LLC to operate the sewerage system. From March 1, 2008 on, MMSD contracted with Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC to operate the system.

    Through agreements, both companies were obligated to indemnify MMSD for claims arising out of the operations and maintenance of the system and to obtain insurance to cover their indemnity obligations. Both companies complied.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The G2G Year in Review: 2021

    January 24, 2022 —
    With 2021 now behind us, we wanted to share our top five most-read articles of 2021 from Gravel2Gavel. The most-read blog posts covered real estate and construction industry trends ranging from Proptech, smart construction, COVID-eviction moratoriums, and blockchain tokenization. Throughout the year, G2G posts provided deep industry insight and summarized hot topics addressing the legal implications and disruptions that affected the market, and we will continue to expand on these insights in 2022. Our 2021 roundup:
    1. Blockchain Innovations and Real Estate: NFTs, DeFis and dApps by Craig A. de Ridder
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    May 16, 2022 —
    In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    September 21, 2020 —
    In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
    1. Procure or obtain;
    2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
    3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
    Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    January 27, 2014 —
    Courts have ruled differently as to whether a construction defect is or is not an “occurrence,” according to the publication Business Insurance. Four states—Colorado, Arkansas, Hawaii and South Carolina—have sought to remove ambiguity by passing statutes that define construction defect claims as occurrences. Colorado, the first state to create such a statue, passed H. B. 10-1394 in May 2010. The state legislature passed the statute “because of the complex and lengthy endorsements and exclusions facing construction professionals, according to the bill” reported Business Insurance. The article stated that “incongruous court decisions over whether construction defect claims are covered under CGL policies continue to drive uncertainty in coverage and increase litigation costs.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    January 20, 2020 —
    In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    June 18, 2019 —
    In today’s environment, most construction projects end up in some form of litigation. Construction is full-time employment for lawyers – from contract negotiation to project management, lien and payment issues. Years after project completion, a company still can face construction defect litigation and be served with a Notice of Opportunity to Repair, which in most states is now codified into statute. This is the beginning of what most likely will become a lawsuit, involving many of the subcontractors. Watch Out for the Construction Contract Blame Game The first phase of post construction litigation involves the review of contract and insurance policy language in an attempt to transfer responsibility in the litigation to other parties. Before construction began, contract negotiation focused on budget and timeline. In the post-construction phase, two less noticed provisions of the contract are critical – indemnity and insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Albert Li & Bob Fitzsimmons, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Fitzsimmons may be contacted at rfitzsimmons@rumberger.com Mr. Li may be contacted at ali@rumberger.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of