BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimony
    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


    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/14/24) – Commercial Real Estate AI, Hotel Pipeline Growth, and Housing Market Improvements

    When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    Stick to Your Guns on Price and Pricing with Construction Contracts

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    BHA Announces New Orlando Location

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Lithium for Batteries from Geothermal Brine

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

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

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    Shutdowns? What A Covid-19-Safe Construction Site Looks Like

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    From Singapore to Rio Green Buildings Keep Tropical Tenants Cool

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971
    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

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    April 28, 2014 —
    The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the additional insured was covered for injury to the subcontractor's employee despite an employee's exclusion in the policy. ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC v. Joule Technical Serv, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (3d Cir. Feb. 18, 2014). ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC (AMP) owned a steel production facility. AMP contracted with Joule, an industrial staffing and engineering firm, for regular performance of maintenance and repair work at its plant. Joule was obligated to provide a CGL policy adding AMP as an additional insured "for all claims including, but not limited to, claims by Joule's employees." Joule added AMP as an additional insured to its policy with Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. The policy had an "employee exclusion" which stated, “This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to (1) an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of (a) employment by the insured or (b) performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's business.” 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

    California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

    February 21, 2022 —
    On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed California Legislature Senate Bill 114 (SB 114), which reinstates supplemental paid sick leave for qualifying reasons relating to COVID-19. Employers may recall SB 95, which expired on September 30, 2021, and was substantially similar to SB 114. Like its predecessor, SB 114 applies to employers with 26 or more employees and provides up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to full-time employees who are unable to work (including telework) for a reason relating to COVID-19. While this legislation goes into effect on February 19, 2022, it will retroactively apply back to January 1, 2022 and remain in effect until September 30, 2022. REASONS FOR LEAVE – TWO PERIODS Unlike SB 95, SB 114 breaks the total possible 80 hours of COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (CSPL) for full-time employees into two 40-hour periods. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jessica L. Daley, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Daley may be contacted at jessica.daley@ndlf.com

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    March 19, 2014 —
    Housing starts in the U.S. were little changed in February after declining less than previously estimated a month earlier, indicating the home-building industry is stabilizing after bad winter weather curbed construction. The 0.2 percent decrease to 907,000 homes at an annualized rate last month followed a revised 909,000 pace in January, figures from the Commerce Department in Washington showed today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey called for a 910,000 rate after a previously reported 880,000 in January. Warmer temperatures, a pickup in demand during the spring selling season and limited housing supply may help fuel further gains in new residential construction. The outlook for the industry later this year depends on whether hiring picks up enough to overcome higher mortgage rates and home prices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanna Smialek, Bloomberg
    Ms. Smialek may be contacted at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    November 05, 2024 —
    Last week, just before Hurricane Milton made landfall, Florida state officials issued an emergency decree to all licensed insurance adjusters in the state to protect homeowners against “unfair and deceptive acts” and “post-storm fraud” by insurance carriers. According to The Washington Post, the Florida Department of Financial Services is requiring that all claim adjusters provide an explanation for each change they make to a consumer’s loss estimate, document those changes, and retain all versions of the estimate and identify who made those revisions. When processing claims, adjusters must also use an electronic estimating system that provides an itemized report of all damage, as well as labor, materials, equipment and supplies. Those costs should be consistent with what a contractor or a repair company in that particular area would charge. “Property damage from Hurricane Milton will be catastrophic and may result in billions of dollars in property losses,” the emergency rule states. “Fair and transparent loss estimates and claims adjustments will be crucial to ensure Floridians are properly and fairly compensated under the terms of their property insurance contracts, while also ensuring ongoing insurer solvency after potentially momentous financial losses.” Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Olivia G. Bushman, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Ms. Bushman may be contacted at obushman@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract

    May 10, 2022 —
    California local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount. In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor. As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:
    Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    Reprinted courtesy of Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    April 20, 2011 —

    After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.

    When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.

    The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    April 27, 2020 —
    This case concerns calculation of a damages award to a general contractor, Skanska USA Building, Inc., on its claim for breach of contract against its masonry subcontractor, J.D. Long Masonry, Inc., arising from Long’s faulty construction of a masonry façade at a medical research facility in Baltimore. When the façade collapsed and Long failed to repair it, Skanska hired a replacement subcontractor, C.A. Lindman, to remediate Long’s defective work and filed suit against Long to recover the resulting damages. After the court granted Skanska’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, Skanska moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, relying on the indemnification provision of the subcontract to seek compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and litigation fees. In the subcontract, Long agreed to indemnify and hold Skanska harmless from all claims, losses, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising before or after completion of Long’s work, caused by, arising out of, resulting from, or occurring in connection with Long’s performance of the work or breach of the subcontract. The court first applied the terms of this provision to award Skanska compensatory damages, holding that Skanska was, as a matter of law, entitled to recover the amount of the Lindman subcontract and general conditions incurred to supervise remediation of Long’s work. The court, however, denied Skanska’s claim for pre-judgment interest on the entirety of these damages. Skanska asserted that it was entitled to pre-judgment interest on the full award, calculated from the date on which it first paid Lindman. The court disagreed, explaining that, under Maryland law, a claimant is entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest as of right only when the amount due is certain, definite and liquidated by a specific date prior to judgment. The court reasoned that, because much of the Lindman subcontract value was composed of later-executed change orders, an award of pre-judgment interest could not be uniformly calculated back to the date of Skanska’s first payment to Lindman. And moreover, because Skanska continued to withhold sums due to Lindman pending resolution of certain issues, awarding Skanska pre-judgment interest on amounts it had not yet paid would result in a “windfall” to Skanska because there was no “use of income” loss to be compensated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John J. Gazzola, Pepper Hamilton LLP
    Mr. Gazzola may be contacted at gazzolaj@pepperlaw.com

    Dispute Review Boards for Real-Time Dispute Avoidance and Resolution

    August 20, 2019 —
    The use of dispute tribunals generally referred to as Dispute Review Boards or DRBs on major projects has matured. Use of a DRB cannot guarantee elimination of post-project litigation, but when used properly, a DRB can be an enormously effective tool to avoid and resolve disputes rapidly and during construction. The modest out-of-pocket costs of a DRB can pay big dividends. DRBs offer the opportunity to shorten the life cycle of a dispute by requiring the principals to confront and address the merits of their dispute, rather than simply hunkering down and focusing on posturing and preparing for arbitration or litigation. Even when a DRB cannot immediately resolve a dispute, the process can still facilitate subsequent settlement and cost-effectively prepare both parties for formal adjudication. DRBs can also enhance communications and help the parties avoid and resolve problems before they spiral into disputes. DRBs were first and are most widely used on big civil and infrastructure projects, but the benefits of a DRB extend equally to major building projects, particularly hospitals, and industrial projects and should be used in those sectors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neal J. Sweeney, Esq., Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Sweeney may be contacted at nsweeney@joneswalker.com