BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs 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


    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    The Legal Landscape

    Updates to AIA Contract Applications

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/08/23) – Buy and Sell With AI, Urban Real Estate Demand and Increasing Energy Costs

    Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

    Home Prices on the Rise

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Dynamics of Managing Professional Liability Claims for Design Builders

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    Denver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing Vehicles

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    Price Escalation Impacts

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

    Hunton Insurance Group Advises Policyholders on Issues That Arise With Wildfire Claims and Coverage – A Seven-Part Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.
    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

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    September 07, 2017 —
    The District of Columbia Condominium Act contains a statutory warranty that protects condominium associations and their unit owner members from structural defects in newly constructed and newly converted condominiums. The warranty is backed by a condominium developer’s bond, letter of credit, or other form of security from which monies can be drawn upon if the developer fails to make warranty repairs. This article discusses how the warranty against structural defect works and how to make claims against the developer’s security to fund warranty repairs. THE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in the condominium common elements and each condominium unit. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) 42-1903.16(b). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    In Pennsylvania, Contractors Can Be Liable to Third Parties for Obvious Defects in Completed Work

    July 10, 2023 —
    In Brown v. City of Oil City, No. 6 WAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 681 (2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) recently held that a contractor can be liable for dangerous conditions it creates even if the hazard is obvious or known by the property owner. In City of Oil City, the City of Oil City (Oil City) contracted with Harold Best and Struxures, LLC and Fred Burns, Inc. (collectively Contractors) to reconstruct the concrete stairs to the city library. Contractors completed their work at the end of 2011. In early 2012, Oil City received reports of issues with the stairs. Oil City notified Contractors that it considered the stairs dangerous and that Contractors’ defective workmanship created the condition. Neither Oil City or Contractors took any action to fix the stairs or warn of the danger and the stairs’ condition worsened with time. On November 23, 2015, David and Kathryn Brown exited the library. Kathryn Brown tripped on one of the deteriorated steps, falling and striking her head. Kathryn suffered a traumatic head injury and passed away six days later. The Estate of Kathryn Brown and David Brown, individually (collectively, the Browns), sued Oil City as the owner of the library and Contractors. With respect to Contractors, the Browns asserted that Contractors’ work on the stairs created a dangerous condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the steps. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    April 17, 2019 —
    Prior to deciding whether to review an important February 1, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision involving the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, et al., v. County of Maui, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for the views of the U.S. on the holdings of this case and the April 12, 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, Upstate Forever, et al., v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al. On February 19, the Supreme Court confirmed that certiorari was granted to Question 1 presented by the Petition,
    Whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater. (33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12)
    In County of Maui , the Ninth Circuit held that indirect discharges to navigable waters through groundwater may be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CWA the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority, and in Kinder Morgan, the Fourth Circuit held that such an indirect discharge may be subject to regulation under the CWA when there is a direct hydrological connection between the discharge into groundwater and the direct discharge into navigable, surface waters. 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

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    November 15, 2017 —
    The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on the CGL policy's business risk exclusions. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. TL Spreader, LLC, (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2017). Helena Chemical Company contracted with its customer Wild Farms to sell and apply certain herbicides and pesticides to Wild Farms' 123 acre rice filed. Helena subcontracted the TL Spreader, LLC (TLS) to apply the chemicals to Wild Farm's rice field. The TLS employee failed to properly neutralize a chemical being used in the spray. TLS finished its work on May 6, 2014, completing all its work for Helena's contract with Wild Farms. Three days after completion of the spraying, the rice crop first began to exhibit physical damage in the form of abnormal stunting, lesions, yellowing and death. 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

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    February 28, 2018 —
    Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    August 06, 2019 —
    The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    April 05, 2017 —
    There have been a couple of decisions as of late, particularly in federal court, that have gone in favor of a performance bond surety and against a general contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. These decisions have been so unfavorable that they may be swaying certain internal decisions to move to subcontractor default insurance with, perhaps, subcontractors that pose less risk. From the general contractor’s perspective, if they have to stop the management of the job and progress to jump through hoops to trigger the performance bond’s obligations, rightfully or wrongfully, the bond may not provide them the value they need. Performance bonds are an appropriate product in many instances, but there should be more consistency regarding the actual trigger of a subcontractor’s performance bond obligations. Project teams need to absolutely understand what efforts they need to take, and how they need to take such efforts, in order to properly trigger a performance bond’s obligations. This is a must (and I have presented many seminars on this very issue). Or, the general contractor should move away from the traditional AIA /standard performance bond form, which is the direction I always go when I am involved in the drafting of a performance bond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    February 03, 2020 —
    Despite the overall decrease in electrical workplace fatalities, construction workers remain the most at risk of death from electrical accidents. In 2016, 53% of all fatal electrical injuries were in the construction industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employers can improve their bottom line by implementing prevention strategies to reduce chances of electrical injuries and create a safer, more efficient jobsite. What Are the Most Common Electrical Injuries in Construction? The three types of electrical injuries that occur the most often on construction jobsites are:
    1. electrocution (such as electric shock and burns) through unintentional contact with high-voltage lines or equipment;
    2. severe burns or death from explosive gases accidentally ignited by electrical equipment; and
    3. injuries from falls or from contact with moving equipment after worker experiences a low-voltage electrical shock and can no longer keep balance or physical control of the tools or equipment they have when shocked.
    Reprinted courtesy of Kelsey Rzepecki, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Rzepecki may be contacted at krzepecki@graphicproducts.com