BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code 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


    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    ASCE Releases New Report on Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure Investment in Disadvantaged Communities

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    New York City Dept. of Buildings Explores Drones for Facade Inspections

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Congratulations 2022 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    William Doerler Recognized by JD Supra 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    The Argument for Solar Power

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)
    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

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    July 03, 2022 —
    The Biden Administration’s Housing Supply Action Plan, unveiled last week, aims to help close America’s shortfall of almost 4 million housing units and subdue the nation’s skyrocketing home prices. At the top of its list of action items is a promise to provide federal grants as a reward to communities that alter land-use policies to promote density, an approach the administration is already piloting. But identifying the land-use policies that most effectively add housing is harder than it seems. Mounting evidence indicates that one-off reforms such as eliminating single-family-only zoning aren’t adequate. To make meaningful progress in building homes, municipalities have to do more. The Biden plan doesn’t detail how it will determine which types of policies will make a community eligible for these federal grants. But to meet the administration’s housing goals, we recommend it require that local governments seeking grants both show that their zoning changes are actually producing additional housing units, and also that their reforms include the full array of land-use policies that affect housing affordability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.

    Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.

    Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”

    The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”

    During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”

    Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    March 16, 2017 —
    The Ohio Court of Appeals determined that the CGL policy was ambiguous as to whether a subcontractor's faulty workmanship was an "occurrence." Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Serv., 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 258 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017). In 2007, Ohio Northern University (ONU) entered a contract with Charles Construction Services, Inc. (CCS) to construct a hotel on the campus. In 2011, the building was completed, but ONU found water intrusion and moisture damage in the interior. When remediating the water damage, ONU found additional, serious structural defects. ONU sued CCS, alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. CCS filed a third-party action against many of its subcontractors. Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) intervened and filed a cross-claim for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage to CCS. CIC and ONU filed cross motions for summary judgment. 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

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    February 14, 2022 —
    After its prior decision holding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court. Skanska United States Bldg. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7336 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021). The post summarizing the Supreme Court decision is here. Skanska USA Building was the construction manager on a renovation project at a medical center. Skanska subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. MAP held a CGL policy from Amerisure. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds. MAP installed a steam boiler and related piping for the heating system. When completed, the heating system did not function properly. MAP installed some of the expansion joints backwards, causing damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system. 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

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    April 30, 2014 —
    Marisa L. Saber on the Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog, discussed Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act, and how it can benefit both builders and plaintiffs in construction defect cases. Saber stated that the “Indiana New Home Construction Warranty Act (the “Act”) (see Indiana Code §32-27-2-1 et. seq.) allows a builder to provide specific warranties and disclaim all implied warranties if the text of the statute is followed.” Furthermore, the warranties must be backed by an insurance policy. Saber answers the question as to why a builder would choose to provide express warranties: “The likely answer is that it allows the builder to have control over its liability if a construction defect occurs.” For instance, “[i]f a builder provides express warranties via the Act, it is assured that any warranty liability will be covered by insurance.” This benefits a plaintiff working in a subrogation case, “as there will be guaranteed insurance for the construction defect if the builder complies with the Act.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    July 18, 2022 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – July 7, 2022 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce its inclusion as one of the "Best Places to Work in Orange County" for 2022. The rankings of the organizations named as the 2022 "Best Places to Work in Orange County" are included in a special July 2022 issue of the Orange County Business Journal. "The foundation of our firm has always been how our people value and commit to each other," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "That commitment, over almost 40 years, has entrenched a wonderful culture where our people are comfortable and happy to be a part of our team, and that has allowed us to continue to thrive and grow." The Best Places to Work in Orange County is a survey and awards program that honors employers in Orange County that are making their workplaces great. This is a project of the Orange County Business Journal in partnership with Workforce Research Group. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    September 19, 2022 —
    Risk allocation between the parties is a critical component of any construction contract. Indemnity obligations can be some of the important risk-shifting provisions of any design or construction contract. Indemnity provisions typically require one party, the Indemnitor, to agree to “hold harmless,” and/or reimburse another party, the indemnitee, from claims and liability arising out of the party’s work. Considering the financial consequences that an indemnity provision can have on a construction project, it is critical that all parties to a construction contract know the legal implications of the contract indemnity provisions and understand any limitations in enforcing the indemnity provisions depending on the controlling jurisdiction. While most indemnity clauses and obligations are enforceable, many states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes prohibiting or restricting specific indemnification provisions. These anti-indemnity statutes afford protection to contractors and subcontractors not generally in a position to protect themselves from overly extensive indemnity obligations. This article highlights several examples of indemnity provisions typically seen in construction contracts, the measures are taken by a growing number of states to protect parties with less bargaining power in the form of anti-indemnity statutes, and offers practical considerations when negotiating or drafting indemnity provisions.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin Kicklighter, Emory Law Student (2024 Graduate), (ConsensusDocs) and Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    October 30, 2018 —
    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Despite the gray muck that fouled the Cape Fear River near a Wilmington power plant after Hurricane Florence, water tests so far show heavy metals contained in coal ash are within state standards, North Carolina environmental officials said Thursday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com