BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield 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


    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

    Strangers in a Strange Land: Revisiting Arbitration Provisions to Account for Increasing International Influences

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Two Lawyers From Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group, Andrea DeField and Latosha Ellis, Selected for American Bar Association’s 2022 “On The Rise” Award

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

    Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/13/22

    A WARNing for Companies

    No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

    Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

    Judge Halts Sale of Brazilian Plywood

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Architect Has No Duty to Safeguard Third Parties Against Injury, Regardless of Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions on the Project

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    The Drought Is Sinking California

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    The Future Has Arrived: New Technologies in Construction

    Get Smarter About Electric Construction Equipment
    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

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    December 09, 2019 —
    On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full. In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision). 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

    Construction Defect Claim Survives Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion Due to Lack of Evidence

    December 23, 2024 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on a construction defect claim due to lack of evidence. Statesboro Erectors, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176555 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2024). Griffco was the general contractor for a construction project. King Steel was hired as the "steel fabricator." King Steel subcontracted with Statesboro Erectors to complete certain construction work at the site. Statesboro agreed to the complete, proper and safe erection of the structural steel. A steel collapse occurred at the construction site. According to King Steel, the collapse "appeared to have occurred due to lack of temporary cables or bracing for steel columns." Because of the collapse, King Steel was required to supply additional materials to replace the structural damage caused by the collapse. 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

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    October 03, 2022 —
    During contract negotiations and review, the parties make choices about what risks they are willing to accept and at what cost. But one often overlooked choice—the choice of law applicable to the contract—can undermine carefully negotiated construction contracts and expose contractors to risks they never intended to accept. Choice-of-law provisions are standard provisions in most contracts. These provisions allow the parties to the contract to decide which state’s laws will apply to their contract. Often, choice-of-law in the construction contract is the law of the state where the project is located and there will be no issue. But, if the project is located in an unfamiliar, the owner or prime contractor may prefer the laws of the state where the owner or prime contractor is primarily located over the laws of the state where the project is located. Generally, most states will enforce the parties’ choice of law in a contract. But that may not be the case for construction contracts. States like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Louisiana, and others may prohibit parties from agreeing to the application of another state’s law for construction projects in their states. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Raush, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Tanya McGill, University of Mississippi School of Law Student, 2023 Graduate (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Raush may be contacted at traush@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    October 16, 2013 —
    Getrag Transmission, a German firm, is being sued by a Detroit-based construction firm that Getrag had hired to build a factory in Indiana. When a court gave the go-ahead to Walbridge Construction for the suit, Getrag appealed, stating that the case should be held in German so that Getrag officials do not have the expense of traveling to Indiana. Getrag was building the plant, which would have cost $350 million, as part of a partnership with Chrysler. Chrysler dropped from the project after filing for bankruptcy. Shortly afterward, Getrag also filed for bankruptcy. Walbridge is seeking $118.5 million due to expenses incurred with subcontractors. Chrysler has announced its intention of finishing the plant, which they estimate will cost about $162 million. Once complete, the plant will employ about 850 workers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

    February 01, 2022 —
    In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    October 11, 2017 —
    California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently determined that manuscript additional insured endorsements (AIEs), which purportedly provided coverage for ongoing operations only, were ambiguous. The court also found the insurer that issued the policies, American Safety Indemnity Co. (American Safety), acted in bad faith due to its systematic efforts to deny coverage to general contractors as additional insureds. In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.,1 Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte Home), a general contractor, sued American Safety for failure to defend Pulte Home as an additional insured in connection with two underlying construction defect lawsuits. American Safety contended that it did not have a duty to defend Pulte Home because the loss occurred after the construction project was complete and the applicable AIEs did not provide coverage for completed operations, and/or because the policy’s faulty workmanship exclusions applied. The trial court awarded $1.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Pulte Home, and American Safety appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Malcom Ranger-Murdock, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Ranger-Murdock may be contacted at mrm@sdvlaw.com

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    January 15, 2014 —
    In a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari. Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale. Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Iandiorio may be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    February 07, 2014 —
    The insureds attempt to secure coverage for ensuing losses after foundation damage was properly denied by the insurer. Walker v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6683 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014). Two provisions excluding coverage under Nationwide's homeowner's policy were key to the court's decision. Exclusion 3 (e) barred coverage for "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stem over a period of time . . . ." Exclusion 3 (f) (6) precluded coverage for settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roof or ceiling. The policy also included a Dwelling Foundation Endorsement which covered settling, cracking, bulging of floor slabs or footings that supported the dwelling caused by seepage or leakage of water or steam. This endorsement stated the limit of liability would not exceed an amount equal to 15% of the limit of coverage for the dwelling. 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