BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    Project Labor Agreements Will Now Be Required for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    Waive Your Claim Goodbye: Louisiana Court Holds That AIA Subrogation Waiver Did Not Violate Anti-Indemnification Statute and Applied to Subcontractors

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Uncover More Pool Deck Deviations

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

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

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak
    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. Leveraging 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

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    August 13, 2014 —
    According to an article by Matthew Vocci of Ober | Kaler in JD Supra, the Supreme Court of Conneticut affirmed in Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Netherlands Ins. “that allegations of years-long, continuing and progressive water intrusion caused by alleged construction defects triggered a duty to defend under CGL coverage language.” Vocci stated that the result demonstrated “the importance of the wording of the allegations relating to construction defects, resulting damage and when the parties were on notice of the issues. For property owners, contractors/builders/developers and their insurers, the allegations in the complaint guide what can be a difficult and contentious determination regarding whether the insured is provided with a defense from its CGL carrier.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    February 16, 2017 —
    As readers of Construction Law Musings are well aware, mechanic’s liens and their picky and at times overly form oriented nature are near and dear to my heart as a construction attorney here in Virginia. I recently had the opportunity to meet this head on in Hanover County, Virginia Circuit Court. I was defending a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien in the context of a lien that had been released pursuant to a bond deposited with the court under Va. Code 43-71 on behalf of my client, the defendant in that suit. The case, G.H. Watts Construction, Inc. v. Cornerstone Builders, LLC, involved a memorandum of lien recorded by G. H. Watts without the assistance of an attorney in which the claimant was identified as “G. H. Watts Construction, Inc.” while the signatory on the memorandum of lien and the claimant identified in the notary block were identified as “Gary H. Watts” and “Gary Watts” respectively. Nowhere on the memorandum was Gary Watts’ capacity as it related to the company, nor did it state that Gary Watts was an agent for claimant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    October 24, 2021 —
    The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the “PRO Act”) is a proposed law that would dramatically rewrite the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Breathtakingly broad in scope, the PRO Act targets several longstanding features of existing law perceived by unions and labor activists to be unfair to labor and too favorable to employers. The proposed legislation is essentially a grab-bag of grievances that the labor movement has compiled over decades and sought to change through legislation and before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) without success in the past. While the PRO Act would affect virtually all private sector employers, it would alter the labor dynamic in the construction industry in four major ways: 1. Removing the current prohibitions on secondary, jurisdictional, and other forms of picketing. Current law attempts to balance the rights of employers to operate their businesses without unnecessary interference with the rights of unions to protest concerning wages and working conditions. As part of this balancing act, the NLRA prohibits unions from picketing under certain conditions or with certain aims. These restrictions include the prohibition on “secondary” picketing by unions of neutral employers, which are employers with which the union does not have a direct labor dispute, and “jurisdictional” picketing by unions to force an employer to assign certain work to a specific trade or group of employees. The elimination of these restrictions in the PRO Act would have a significant impact on the construction industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew M. MacDonald, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at amacdonald@foxrothschild.com

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    April 13, 2017 —
    All too often entities prepare their own construction liens. Sure, it is an effective way to save a few bucks. No doubt about it. But, by doing so, you are (i) not relying on advice of counsel that is important when it comes to lien preparation and (ii) not relying on strategy that goes along with the preparation of a lien. When you are liening, the reason you are doing so is because you have not been paid. You therefore want to collateralize your nonpayment against the real property—the leverage of a construction lien. This is a very beneficial statutory tool if implemented correctly, so it only makes sense to do it “strategically” right. A construction lien is a statutory form. So, how hard can it be? Filling out the “form” is not hard, however, there is legal significance to the information and amounts included in a lien. For instance:
    • There is significance to the amount you are liening. Are you liening for disputed change order work? Are you liening for amounts unrelated to base contract work?
    • There is significance to the final furnishing date. Are you liening within 90 days of performing base contract work unrelated to punchlist or warranty work?
    • There is significance to date the Notice to Owner was served (if you are not in privity with the owner). Was the Notice to Owner served within 45 days of initial furnishing?
    • There is significance to the legal description identified in the lien. Are you liening the right property based on the type of project you are working on?
    • There can even be significance to the initial furnishing date. Assuming you are the general contractor, what was your initial furnishing date in comparison with when the Notice of Commencement was recorded? If you are not a general contractor, when was the initial furnishing date in comparison with when you served the Notice to Owner?
    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

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

    July 16, 2014 —
    Doug Immel recently completed his custom-built dream home, sparing no expense on details like cherry-wood floors, cathedral ceilings and stained-glass windows -- in just 164 square feet of living space including a loft. The 57-year-old schoolteacher’s tiny house near Providence, Rhode Island, cost $28,000 -- a seventh of the median price of single-family residences in his state. “I wanted to have an edge against career vagaries,” said Immel, a former real estate appraiser. A dwelling with minimal financial burden “gives you a little attitude.” He invests the money he would have spent on a mortgage and related costs in a mutual fund, halving his retirement horizon to 10 years and maybe even as soon as three. “I am infinitely happier.” Dramatic downsizing is gaining interest among Americans, gauging by increased sales of plans and ready-made homes and growing audiences for websites related to the niche. A+E Networks Corp. will air, beginning today, “Tiny House Nation” a series on FYI that “celebrates the exploding movement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nina Glinski, Bloomberg
    Ms. Glinski may be contacted at nglinski@bloomberg.net

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    August 20, 2014 —
    Emergency services in the northern German city of Dusseldorf are preparing to evacuate more than 4,000 people, including residents of a retirement home, as work gets under way to disarm a World War II bomb discovered during construction work yesterday. A further 15,000 people, living within a 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) radius of the site, are being asked to stay indoors and keep away from windows, authorities said in a press release published on its website. The disposal is scheduled for 4 p.m. Roads in the vicinity are expected to remain closed until at least 5 p.m. The 500-kilogram (1,100 pound) U.S. aircraft bomb was unearthed on the site of the former Reitzenstein army barracks, which is being redeveloped as a residential area. It’s the fourth or fifth find since last year in the northeastern district of Moersenbroich, where new apartment buildings and houses are under construction, Tobias Schuelpen, a press spokesman for the local fire service, said by phone. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dorothee Tschampa, Bloomberg
    Ms. Tschampa may be contacted at dtschampa@bloomberg.net

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    October 24, 2023 —
    In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tamagawa, Index No. 510977/2021, 2023 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 5434, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether an insurance carrier can settle its property subrogation lawsuit with the defendant, and discontinue the lawsuit, while the carrier’s insured still had pending claims with the carrier and claims for uninsured losses against the defendant. The court held that the carrier’s claims for the amount paid are divisible and independent of the insured’s claims and that the carrier’s settlement did not affect the insured’s right to sue for any unreimbursed losses. The court’s decision reminds us that, in New York, a carrier can resolve its subrogation claim before the insured is made whole. In June 2018, a water loss occurred in an apartment owned by Malik Graves-Pryor (Graves-Pryor). Graves-Pryor reported a claim to his property insurance carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Carrier). Investigation into the water loss revealed that the water originated from failed plumbing pipes in another apartment unit owned by Taku Tamagawa (Tamagawa). Carrier paid its insured over $600,000 for repairs. In May 2021, Carrier filed a subrogation lawsuit against Tamagawa, alleging improper maintenance of the plumbing pipes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    March 14, 2018 —
    On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com