BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling 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


    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    How Will Artificial Intelligence Impact Construction Litigation?

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    Breath of Fresh Air

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

    U.S. Department of Justice Settles against Days Inn

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

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

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Insurer's Late Notice Defense Fails on Summary Judgment

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld
    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

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    September 17, 2015 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. As noted below, in order to pursue this remedy, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Progress, Property, and Privacy: Discussing Human-Led Infrastructure with Jeff Schumacher

    August 30, 2021 —
    We sat down with Jeff Schumacher, Microsoft’s Global Workplace Services Regional Lead Ireland, UK, and MEA, in the run-up to his keynote speech at WDBE 2021. Our conversation covered how technical innovation has changed the sector, the dangers of assumption, and why retaining a human-centred perspective is vital in a data-driven business. As we leave lockdown, the conversation shifts from measuring the impact on society to the positive change that our urban spaces and built environment can provide. But when it comes to contemporary professional working spaces and the habits of the people working within them, it can be difficult to find a solution that works. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

    March 16, 2017 —
    As the 2017 Colorado legislative session reaches the halfway point, I thought it an opportune time to provide a quick overview of the construction defect bills introduced so far this session. Senate Bill 17-045, “Concerning a Requirement for Equitable Allocation of the Costs of Defending a Construction Defect Claim,” sponsored by Senators Grantham and Angela Williams and Representatives Duran and Wist, was introduced on January 11th and assigned to the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee. This bill affects construction defect actions in which more than one insurer has a duty to defend a party by providing that if the carriers cannot agree regarding how to allocate defense costs within 45 days of the filing of a contribution action, a court must conduct a hearing regarding the apportionment of the costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, among all carriers sharing in the duty to defend within 60 days after an insurer files its claim for contribution, unless the carriers agree to resolve the issue through a mutually agreeable, alternative process. The bill further provides that the court must make a final apportionment of costs after entry of a final judgment resolving all of the underlying claims against the insured. The bill also makes clear that an insurer seeking contribution may also make a claim against an insured or additional insured who chose not to procure liability insurance during any period of time relevant to the underlying action. Finally, the bill states that a claim for contribution may be assigned and that bringing such a claim does not affect any insurer’s duty to defend. The Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee heard SB 17-045 on February 8th and referred the bill, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

    May 01, 2014 —
    Numerous factual issues prevented the court from deciding at the summary judgment stage whether the additional insured was covered for a personal injury claim that happened on a construction site. Paynes Cranes v. Am States Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40485 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2014). Intermetal Fabricators, Inc. hired Paynes to provide a crane and driver for the construction of a store. A construction worker was injured while working with the crane. The injured worker sued several defendants, including Paynes. Intermetal had coverage for the project that included additional insureds. The policy provided, “Any person or organization . . . for whom you [Intermetal] are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period . . . and must have been executed prior to the ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’ 'person and advertising injury.’” 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

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    August 07, 2018 —
    Introduction When a foreclosure sale generates more money than needed to pay off the lien, the excess proceeds usually go first to creditors in the order of their priority, and second to the owner after creditors are paid in full. So, in truth, not everyone wins when a foreclosure sale brings in too much money. Amusingly, in Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins, the court awarded excess sale proceeds to….you guessed it…Everyone Wins, despite the owner’s argument that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes barred it from recovering anything. In addition to supplying a clever title for this post, Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins provides an important analysis of how Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes, homeowner’s assessment lien statutes, and foreclosure statutes apply when determining who “wins” when it comes to excess sale proceeds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    August 14, 2018 —
    Like much of the world, Patrick Decker has been engrossed in the saga of 12 boys and their soccer coach who became trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand. Unlike most, Decker is in a position to do something about it. As chief executive officer of Xylem Inc., one of the world’s top water technology firms, Decker spent much of last week reaching out to Thai officials and mobilizing his company of 17,000 employees to help. Decker said he sent four engineers to the cave site, and they assisted rescuers by boosting pumping power 40 percent. Thai Navy SEALs and international cave diving experts extracted eight boys over Sunday and Monday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dan Murtaugh, Bloomberg

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest

    October 25, 2021 —
    The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of bad faith and award to the insured of taxable costs and prejudgment interest. Selective Ins. Co. v. Sela, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26062 (8th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). The insured suffered two hail storms that damaged his home. In 2010, the first storm caused over half a million dollars in loss. Before submitting a claim to his original insurer or beginning any repairs, the insured secured a new policy with Selective. The policy did not exclude pre-existing damage, it did preclude coverage if the insured "willfully and with intent to defraud, concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to the insurance." Before issuing the policy, Selective appraised the property and assigned a $1.6 million value to the home. The insured then filed a claim with his original insurer and received $510,787.23 for actual cash value of his loss. Neither the terms of this settlement nor this new policy with Selective required the insured to repair all of the 2010 damage. 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

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    March 04, 2019 —
    A subcontractor employee working on the now-canceled MOX project in South Carolina used football tickets, automobile tires, barbecue grills and other gifts to persuade employees of CB&I AREVA MOX Services and other vendors to help approve thousands of fraudulent invoices cumulatively valued at more than $6.4 million, according to a Dept. of Justice lawsuit filed Feb. 14 that names both companies as defendants. The controversial project at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., originally scheduled for completion in 2016, was canceled in January after cost and schedule estimates increased significantly. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
    Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com