BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor 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


    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    An Era of Legends

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Arizona Is the No. 1 Merit Shop Construction State, According to ABC’s 2020 Scorecard

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion
    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

    Challenging Enforceability of Liquidated Damages (In Federal Construction Context)

    March 11, 2024 —
    A recent summary judgment opinion from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), Appeals Of – BCI Construction USA, Inc.,ASBCA No. 6257, 2024 WL 773324 (2024), contains a worthy discussion regarding a contractor’s challenge to the government’s assessment of liquidated damages, specifically the enforceability of the liquidated damages rate. Although this challenge is in the federal context, this discussion would be more expansive and apply outside of the federal context. When dealing with the enforceability of a liquidated damages, the ASBCA “examines whether the liquidated damages amount ‘is extravagant, or disproportionate to the amount of property loss, as to show that compensation was not the object aimed at or as to imply fraud, mistake, circumvention or oppression.” Appeals of – BCI Construction USA, Inc. (citation omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    January 11, 2022 —
    Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    July 29, 2019 —
    Seattle (AP) -- Four people died and three were injured when a construction crane on the new Google Seattle campus collapsed Saturday, pinning six cars underneath. One female and three males were dead by the time firefighters got to the scene, Fire Chief Harold Scoggins said. Two of the dead were ironworkers, not crane operators, as had been previously stated, and the two others were people who had been in cars, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said Saturday night. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    November 18, 2011 —

    The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

    The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    May 06, 2019 —
    On March 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued two separate rulings that reversed and set aside energy and environmental decisions made by the current administration, which had revoked decisions made in these same matters by the prior administration. The cases are League of Conservation Voters, et al., v. Trump (concerning the development of oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)) and Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, et al., v. Bernhardt, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (which concerns a Land Exchange that would facilitate the construction of a road between two remote Alaska communities when that road would traverse parts of a designated national wilderness). In the League of Conservation Voters matter, the District Court held that the President’s Executive Order 13795 (released on April 28, 2017), which purported to revoke President Obama’s decisions to withdraw certain OCS tracts from oil and gas exploration and development, was unlawful because it was not authorized by Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In 2015 and 2016, President Obama issued Presidential Memorandums and an Executive Order withdrawing these particular tracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    September 23, 2019 —
    In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

    May 15, 2023 —
    In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    July 08, 2024 —
    The drive to be outside, even in hot weather, is hard to overcome. People without air ­conditioning would be more likely to seek relief at their local park, ­according to Elie Bou-Zeid, a professor of civil and environmental ­engineering at Princeton, than at a government building where they can feel like climate refugees. “It’ll certainly be more pleasant to be in a park than in some indoor stadium where nobody wants to go,” he says. The scientists are combining inexpensive technologies, some novel, some already in use, that they plan to test first in New Jersey for deployment in hot spots like Phoenix. Kirigami The art of cutting and folding paper, kirigami is inspiring researchers to design structures that control wind in specific ways. A kirigami structure made from fabric and placed over misters could regulate wind speed to maximize cooling. Or it could form the roof of a pavilion, steering air into the structure. Misters They spray small ­water droplets that quickly evaporate, cooling the air. But the effectiveness of misters, which have long been used in cities such as Las Vegas and Phoenix, depends on wind speed. If there’s too little wind, the droplets won’t all evaporate; too much wind and the cooling effects dissipate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd Woody, Bloomberg