BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnesses
    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


    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    Drones Give Inspectors a Closer Look at Bridges

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building

    Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    Insurance Telematics and Usage Based Insurance Products

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Part I: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    Victoria Kajo Named One of KNOW Women's 100 Women to KNOW in America for 2024

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Chicago’s Bungalows Are Where the City Comes Together

    The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value
    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

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    September 21, 2020 —
    On July 30, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) heard oral argument on the potential consolidation of all federal cases involving business interruption coverage relating to coronavirus and shut-down orders. A decision will be rendered in the near future. Meanwhile, many cases are on hold, waiting for a determination on consolidation. One such case is Pigment Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133230 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020), where the court granted a stay pending a decision by the JPML. The case is a class action based on denial of coverage under business interruption insurance. Plaintiff's case alleged a bad faith denial that risked the permanent closure of its business due to unexpected temporary shutdowns from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff sought a stay pending the decision of the JPML. The court considered the possible damage which could result from granting a stay, the hardship which a party could suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured by the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 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

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    January 25, 2021 —
    On New Year’s Eve, Florida’s Supreme Court issued an amendment to essentially apply the federal summary judgment standard to cases in Florida state courts starting on May 1, 2021. See In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20 1490 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020) (per curiam). This change brings Florida in line with the majority of states (38). Summary judgment is easier to obtain under the federal standard. A moving party need only show that the opposing party lacks the evidence to support its case at trial. Under the soon-to-be obsolete Florida standard, however, moving parties had to entirely “disprove the nonmovant’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact." See id. at 3. The nonmoving party could defeat a summary judgment motion by showing that there was a slight doubt on any material fact. See id. at 4-5. This change is good news for defendants and their insurers. With summary judgment easier to obtain, weak claims can be defended prior to trial. Claims may be resolved more quickly and economically. The threat of summary judgment also gives defendants powerful leverage in settlement discussions. The shift may also reduce the backlog of cases accumulated during the suspension of jury trials over the past summer. Reprinted courtesy of John A. Rine, Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    October 10, 2022 —
    The doctrine of accord and satisfaction lives and breathes in disputes including construction disputes. Unfortunately, a contractor, in the case discussed below, found out the hard way after it cashed checks that were accompanied with a letter that clearly indicated the checks were final payment. Once those payments were cashed, there was no “buyer’s remorse” that would allow it to still pursue disputed amounts. Remember this the next time you accept and cash a payment that says on the check it is full and final payment OR is accompanied by a letter that makes clear the payment is full and final payment. If you cash it, there is no second bite out of the apple, so to speak. If you are not interested in the payment being full and final payment, return the check. If you are not sure, either return the check or inquire and get that response in writing. Don’t put yourself in the position of defending against an accord and satisfaction defense. Even without the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, the contract between the contractor and owner discussed below made clear that contractor’s acceptance of final payment meant that contractor was unconditionally waiving other claims against the owner, further reinforcing that there would be no second bite out of the apple. The morale:
    (1) read the letter that accompanies a check and do NOT cash a check that indicates it is for final payment unless you are prepared to accept that amount; and (2) read your contract to understand any contractual obligation that kicks-in with the acceptance of final payment.
    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

    The Legal Landscape

    June 17, 2024 —
    The construction industry continues to change as new technologies reshape jobsites and new generations of leaders rethink the way companies should operate. But one piece of the puzzle remains very much the same: Everyone needs a good lawyer. According to the most recent edition of the Arcadis Construction Disputes Report, the average value of a dispute in the industry has soared to $42.8 million—a 42% year-over-year increase between 2021 and 2022. And based on how busy the attorneys at Construction Executive’s 2024 Top 50 Construction Law Firmshave been this year, there is no sign of legal issues becoming less important to builders and contractors. Every construction leader wants to spend more time and energy doing what they do best—building projects safely, efficiently and profitably—and less time thinking about the things that might land them in court. How can you best avoid big disputes bound for mediation, arbitration or litigation? What emerging rules and regulations should be on your radar as you develop strategies for success? While legal issues will never disappear, listening to what some of the best construction lawyers in the country—all members of 2024 Top 50 Construction Law Firms—are thinking about offers a helpful perspective on future-proofing your business against risk, liability and worse. Reprinted courtesy of David McMillin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    June 08, 2020 —
    The Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 (Fla. Jan 23, 2020), which answered the following certified question of great public importance: Does rule 9.130 [(A)(3)(C)(XI)] permit an appeal of a non-final order denying immunity if the record shows that the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law but the trial court did not explicitly preclude it as a defense? The Court’s answer to this question was “no.” But this opinion stands for much more than just a negative answer to a certified question. Indeed, this opinion has significant implications upon procedural and substantive areas of construction law, which may affect agents of the state of Florida, including Construction Engineering and Inspection professionals and consultants (“CEI”). Procedurally, the Court recognizes that Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 insufficiently protects the public and governmental interests as “it leaves too great a risk that erroneous denials of operational sovereign immunity will go unreviewed until it is too late.” Id. at * 19. By extension of this risk, the Jackson Court announced that “courts should determine entitlement to sovereign immunity as early as the record permits.” Id. at * 18. In fact, on that basis, courts can address a motion for summary judgment asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity even if there are outstanding disputes as to, say, the existence of a duty of care. Id. at 17-18. Accordingly, and in an effort to remedy the risk of erroneous denials going unreviewed until it is too late, the Court amended Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 at * 19; In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC19-1734 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The new form of Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cements the policy mentioned above because it allows an appeal of a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment due to entitlement to sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, under the old rule, the order was only appealable if the trial court order determined – as a matter of law – that a party was not entitled to sovereign immunity. As such, the new rule focuses on what was argued in the motion as opposed to what was written in the order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greggory Jacobs, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at greggory.jacobs@csklegal.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    August 05, 2024 —
    Not really, said a Florida state appellate court when a public construction project owner sued a defaulted general contractor after recovering from the general contractor’s surety. The general contractor, Close Construction, entered into a contract for a lift station rehabilitation construction project with the City of Riviera Beach in Florida. During the course of the work the public owner terminated the contract, whereupon the GC and the owner brought claims against each other in court. A jury ultimately held against the general contractor and in favor of the public owner in the amount of approximately $1.9 million. The general contractor appealed. On appeal, the general contractor noted that the public works surety which it was required by the contract to obtain for the project had hired another company to complete the work when the general contractor was terminated and had otherwise “settled with the District under its bond for $1,000,000.” Based on that settlement, the general contractor had moved, unsuccessfully, in the trial court for a post-trial setoff because the “settlement covered the same damages that the jury assessed” against the GC, and because the surety was “jointly and severally liable” with the GC – pursuant to the terms of the bond – for those damages. In essence, the general contractor sought to avoid having the public owner “obtain a double recovery.” 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

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    December 11, 2013 —
    Excel Homes, a modular home builder based in Liverpool, Pennsylvania, has bought Keiser Homes, a modular home builder based in Oxford Hills, Maine. Excel sought to increase their capacity, which acquisition of the Oxford Hills facility allows. Excel had previously shown an interest in the property of an Oxford Hills modular home builder that had closed, Oxford Homes, but a decrease in sales of modular homes lead Excel to reconsider the purchase. Excel Homes plans on doubling the current output of the Oxford Hills facility and will be hiring additional employees. The purchase included all of Keiser’s machinery, trucks, trailers, equipment, and the customer list. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    US Supreme Court Backs Panama Canal Owner in Dispute with Builders

    May 20, 2024 —
    A long-running legal battle over the concrete used in construction of the Panama Canal's third lane expansion locks has reached its end in U.S. courts—with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 upholding a $271.8-million award to the project owner, the Panama Canal Authority, against its contractor group, Grupo Unidos por el Canal. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of