BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete 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


    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    The Black Woman Architect Who Hopes to Change the Face of Design in America

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

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

    S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

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

    Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

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

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    Elyria, Ohio, to Invest $250M to Halt Illegal Sewage into Black River

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Rental Assistance Program: Good News for Tenants and Possibly Landlords

    Rhode Island Sues 13 Industry Firms Over Flawed Interstate Bridge

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting

    November 21, 2022 —
    Construction projects can be inherently risky – often there are multiple parties (owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, vendors, government officials, sureties, insurers, and many others), unforeseen site conditions, tangled supply chains, acts of God, inadequate funding, site safety matters, and a whole host of other issues that can make even a relatively straight-forward job complex. Parties necessarily want to minimize their individual risk to the greatest extent possible on construction projects. And to do so, they may seek to push as much risk as possible onto the other side through one-sided terms in their construction contract.   But is an entirely one-sided contract the best way to mitigate risk? In many instances, the answer is no. Every contract is different – and many considerations should be taken into account when drafting and negotiating contracts – but entirely one-sided can often have unintended consequences and create risks that otherwise might not exist in a contract that allocates and balances risk more equally across the parties. This article reviews several considerations (although it is not an exhaustive list) for avoiding one-sided contracts, including some of the benefits created through the use of equitable contract clauses. And for context, some examples of one-sided contract clauses include no relief for other contractor/owner-caused delays; no relief for force majeure events; no relief for unforeseen site conditions; and broad form indemnification clauses (i.e. one party assumes the obligation to pay for another party’s liability even if the other party is solely at fault). Again, this is a non-exhaustive list, and many other standard contract provisions can be altered to become one-sided. But the general premise of a “one-sided contract clause” is that it shifts all risk, obligation, and liability to one party. And this article examines why that might not be the best idea.   Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    February 26, 2015 —
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS LOWER COURT DECISION APPROVING $13,703,039 JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF 460 SUN CITY GRAND HOMEOWNERS AGAINST DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF PULTEGROUP, INC., FOR HOMES RIDDLED WITH CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS --In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awards $10,619,640 to another 279 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued Del Webb over construction defects, which Del Webb has appealed-- PHOENIX, Arizona – The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, [on Tuesday] issued a unanimous ruling upholding a lower court decision awarding $13,703,039 to 460 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued developer Del Webb Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of PulteGroup, Inc., for numerous construction defects that severely damaged the plaintiffs’ homes. Sun City Grand is an age-restricted community located in Surprise. In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awarded $10,619,640 to another group of 279 Sun City Grand homeowners for multiple construction defects in their homes. Stephen Weber, the managing partner in the Phoenix office of Kasdan Weber Turner LLP, which represents the homeowners, said that the case is based on construction defects that damaged the plaintiffs’ homes and took several years to resolve. The defects include defective windows, poorly installed stucco, expansive soil conditions that resulted in cracking of drywall, and deteriorating concrete foundation systems, among other problems. “Del Webb placed an arbitration clause in the sales contracts and the homeowners honored it. The binding arbitration that includes the owners of 460 homes in Sun City Grand was completed in late 2011 when the arbitration panel unanimously awarded the homeowners $13,703,039. Del Webb then challenged the award in Superior Court and the Superior Court confirmed the award in full,” Weber explained. “Del Webb did not like the Superior Court ruling either and challenged it in the Court of Appeals. And now three justices of the Arizona Court of Appeals have unanimously affirmed the Superior Court order and the arbitration award stands. Now they will have the funds to repair their homes, restore their value, and live in comfort,” Weber said. The $13,703,309 award includes amounts for home repairs, attorney fees, expert fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. An additional $1,401,236 in post-judgment interest also accrued while the case was on appeal. The other construction defect case that awarded $10,619,640 to homeowners was not covered by binding arbitration. Del Webb has also appealed that case which will now go through the appeals process. That could take two to three years and again the homeowners will have to wait for the final judgment, Weber noted. Ken Kasdan, senior and managing partner of the Kasdan Weber Turner firm and one of the nation’s leading experts on construction defect litigation, said the defects are egregious. “The multiple defects rob them of pride of ownership,” he said. “A home is something that a homeowner wants to be proud of. Unfortunately, defective workmanship and poor construction have caused damage to the homes. Now these homes can be repaired and the homeowners will no longer have to deal with defective windows and cracked slabs. Developers need to understand that arbitration awards are final and binding,” Kasdan noted. The Kasdan Weber Turner law firm has offices in Phoenix, Arizona and in Irvine, California and Walnut Creek, California. The firm represents property owners in major construction defect litigation. For more information on the firm, visit www.kasdancdlaw.com. Stephen Weber may be contacted at (602) 224-7800. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    October 09, 2018 —
    After two billion dollars and two decades, San Francisco’s newest transportation hub opened on August 11th of this year only to be closed a month later, on September 25th, after a cracked beam was discovered, according to The Real Deal. Later, workers found an additional, though smaller, crack in another beam parallel to the first. The Real Deal described the crack in the first beam: “The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) – which built and now operates the center – said the tear was 2.5 feet long and 4.5 inches deep on a 60-foot beam that holds a 5.4-acre rooftop park above a bus deck.” Steel supports are now being installed to reduce the pressure on the beams. While officials have not discovered the cause of the problem, The Real Deal reported several possibilities, including “fabrication problems, installation error, too much weight, or an issue in the initial design.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    March 04, 2024 —
    Are you crazy? That is what I asked my client when he asked me to conduct a jury trial remotely. At the time, I did not even know if it was feasible. While I figured that most courtrooms had remote capabilities, I was not sure whether anyone was crazy enough to do a jury trial remotely and whether a courtroom would accommodate it. Would I be able to truly connect with the jurors? Would the jurors hold it against me that I am appearing remotely while they have to be there in person? I told my client that this was a terrible idea but that I would at least see if it was an option. At the Final Status Conference, the Court confirmed that it could accommodate a remote appearance for both the party and the party’s counsel and gave its permission to do so. It was also clear that I would be the only attorney exercising this option, and the judge remarked that this would be a first for him. Appearing remotely while other attorneys appear in person is not something I would normally consider. However, this case presented a unique set of circumstances. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Samuel Yu, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Yu may be contacted at syu@kahanafeld.com

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    October 22, 2013 —
    Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. Claimed in a hearing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that when they sold about $8.5 million of contaminated drywall to Venture Supply Inc. of Virginia, that they had no awareness that the drywall would be sold in the United States. Joe Cyr, an attorney for Taisan told the court that “Venture Supply never said it was going to distribute the goods in Virginia.” One of the judges on the three-judge panel, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, was skeptical of Taishan’s claim, asking, “it was packed and labeled for the Virginia market, isn’t that correct?” When asked by a judge if Taishan was trying to avoid accountability, Cyr said that Tiashan “has not said that it doesn’t want to be accountable for its drywall.” Taishan holds the position that claims against it should be arbitrated in the People’s Republic of China. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    November 13, 2013 —
    The lawyers of Little Bulman Medeiros & Whitney PC will be joining Pierce Atwood on December 9, 2013. The combined firm will have a larger construction litigation practice. Little Bulman is already recognized for its handling of construction disputes. Pierce Atwood is one of the largest firms in New England. Their combined forces intended to create a strong presence in construction litigation throughout New England. Gloria Pinza, a managing partner at Pierce Atwood said of Little Bulman that “their exceptional credentials in the construction law area will combine with our strong construction practice to create a regional practice that will provide highly competitive expertise, depth and value throughout New England and beyond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    October 09, 2018 —
    An unfortunate fact of the architecture and engineering professions and the construction industry is that, between every stage of the process—from planning and design to construction and operations—critical data is lost. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicolas Mangon, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

    July 31, 2024 —
    Surplus lines insurers in Louisiana are considered by the state to be “an alternative type of property and casualty insurance coverage for consumers who cannot get coverage on the standard market … for specialty risk or high-risk situations….” As a quid pro quo for undertaking the exceptional risk, a surplus lines insurer argued to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that an arbitration clause within its surplus line policy should be enforceable, notwithstanding a Louisiana statute applying to the insurance industry and prohibiting terms in insurance policies “delivered or issued for delivery” in Louisiana which have the effect of “[d]epriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer.” La. R.S. 22:868. Historically in Louisiana, arbitration clauses have been understood to divest courts of jurisdiction, and, consequently, §22:868 has been held to memorialize an “anti-arbitration policy,” although the statute does not specifically mention arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com