BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    Housing Affordability Down

    Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Facing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To Police

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough
    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

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    February 14, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    May 12, 2016 —
    On April 21, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion that immediately drew the ire of the greater real estate development industry and those concerned about affordable housing in a state in the midst of unprecedented soaring rent and housing prices. The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A., 2016 COA 61, decision is the result of protracted litigation arising out of construction and sale of the ill-fated European Village (“Village”) residential community. For a thorough summary of the origins of the development and the unfortunate story of the man behind the curtain, review the Denver Post’s article titled “Zachary Davidson, Denver Landmark developer, and his fall from grace.” (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22656011/fall-from-grace-zach-davidson-landmark denver) Despite the unique facts and circumstances relating to the questionable dealings by the developer, Mr. Zachary Davidson, the decision now stands to turn the Colorado real estate development business on its head. Specifically, a group of condominium owners, who did not live in the Village, learned that their properties had been included in a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District (“District”), to finance the Village. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Davidson failed to disclose to the condominium owners that they would be responsible for financing the Village’s development through previously issued bonds by the District to be paid for through their property taxes. Understandably frustrated by this discovery the condominium owners, through the Landmark Towers Association, Inc. (“Landmark HOA”), investigated the origin of these unforeseen property taxes. 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

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    June 01, 2020 —
    It’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law. In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    August 17, 2020 —
    After mediation failed, a federal whistle blower lawsuit over alleged fraud against two contractors, which also targets sureties and a surety bond producer, is moving forward. The parties have asked a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C. to rule on outstanding motions in preparation for a possible trial. Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    July 11, 2022 —
    LOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest. Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility." The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law Corporation
    Mr. Hennigh may be contacted at Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    June 05, 2017 —
    On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise. Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them. Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

    August 13, 2014 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that an improperly applied chemical coating might delay the opening of McCarran International Airport’s Federal Aviation Administration tower by a year and cost millions of dollars to repair. The chemical coating was intended “to prevent the spread of toxic fungus,” but was “improperly applied and is ineffective,” workers on the site told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Officials said the” $99 million, 352-foot “tower was expected to be operational by 2015, but the FAA now says it won’t be able to use the facility until late 2016 or early 2017.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination

    March 06, 2022 —
    How does it feel to be a woman working in a male-dominated industry? It means an everyday fight on gender bias, discrimination, pay inequality, and a bunch of mansplaining. Though the construction industry progressed– over 1.2 million women work in construction, up from 619,000 in 1985–women continue to be a minority. Among the women working in the industry, almost 9 out of 10 women have an office role, while only 2.5% are tradespeople. The situation looks grimmer for women in higher positions as only 16% hold executive roles, and only 2% are CEOs. The issue becomes troublesome considering that 45% of women indicated that the lack of women role models working in senior positions halted advancement in their careers. Gender discrimination was always prevalent in the construction industry, though it shows higher in today’s statistics. In 2020, the annual study of women in construction showed 72% of women in construction face discrimination, up from 66% in 2005. The increase doesn’t mean there is an increase in workplace discrimination; instead, it shows women are raising their voices for the issue. Today, women are using social media to show the prejudice they confront every day, inspire each other to speak up, and showcase their competencies within the industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Workwear Guru