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


    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

    A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/6/24) – Steep Drop in Commercial Real Estate Investment, Autonomous Robots Being Developed for Construction Projects, and Treasury Department Proposes Regulation for Real Estate Professionals

    California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding

    Unfair Risk Allocation on Design-Build Projects

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    Engineer Probing Champlain Towers Debacle Eyes Possibility of Three Successive Collapses

    Florida trigger

    The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Turkey to Start Building 200,000 Homes in March, Erdogan Says

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)
    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

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    September 28, 2017 —
    In 1931, during the Great Depression, the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to help workers on federal construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, also known as the federal prevailing wage law, sets minimum wages that must be paid to workers on federal construction projects based on local “prevailing” wages. The law was designed to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local construction projects. California’s current prevailing wage law requires that contractors on state and local public works projects pay their employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located, as well as to hire apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs and to make monetary contributions for apprenticeship training. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Florida’s Statute of Limitations / Repose for Actions Founded on Construction Improvement Modified

    April 25, 2023 —
    On April 13, 2023, Florida’s all-important four-year statute of limitations–Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c)–relating to actions founded on construction of an improvement of real property was modified. This is a key statute of limitations for ALL construction practitioners because it also includes the statute of repose for latent construction defects. At the bottom of this posting is the current version fo s. 95.11(3)(c) with the underlined section being recent additions. (They hyperlink above will identify the deletions and additions.) Important things to note:
    • Statute of Repose. The statute of repose has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. There is now an objective date for when the repose period commences: “within 7 years after the date the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy, or a certificate of completion, or the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, whichever date is earliest.”
    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

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    October 25, 2021 —
    Federal construction contracts law generally recognizes four basic methods for pricing damages: (1) Actual Cost Method (ACM); (2) Total Cost Method (TCM); (3) Modified Total Cost Method (MTCM); and (4) Jury Verdict Recovery Method (JVRM). In practice, it is difficult to obtain significant recoveries on TCM and JVRM claims, and only marginally easier on MTCM claims. That is because the courts and boards that hear federal government contracts cases have developed a clear preference for the ACM. Despite this preference, many contractors do not have systems in place to maximize their opportunity to recover damages under the ACM. This article introduces various strategies for tracking and allocating damages during project performance in a manner that will support an ACM analysis if a federal construction claim is litigated. Background: Four Basic Methods for Pricing Damages The four methods for pricing damages are described, below: 1. Actual Cost Method The actual cost method claims damages based on records of “actual costs” that were documented during the performance of the contract. All additional costs must be separately recorded from the costs incurred in the normal course of contract performance. Because contractors provide the court or board with documented underlying expenses under the actual cost method, courts and boards prefer this method. However, the actual cost method may not always be feasible where a contractor is confronted with drastic changes early and often in a project. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild LLP and Jane Han, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps

    May 23, 2022 —
    A new ruling in Washington state that will require all new commercial buildings to use electric heat pumps is supported by environmentalists but opposed by several construction industry interests. The opposition fears the rule will have a negative impact on the cost and volume of real estate development. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    October 19, 2017 —
    On September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law. NEW REQUIREMENTS Once signed, this bill would impose the following requirements under Labor Code section 218.7:
    • Applies to All Private Works Contracts That Are Entered Starting January 1, 2018. For private works contracts entered on or after January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” (i.e., prime contractor or contractor who has direct contractual relationship with an owner) must assume and be liable for any debt which its subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor incurs “for [a] wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the contract between the direct contractor and the owner.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (a)(1) and (e).)
    • The Labor Commissioner and Joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees May Bring Action to Recover Unpaid Wages on Behalf of Wage Claimants. The California Labor Commissioner and joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees established under the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. § 175a) (typically comprised of labor unions and management) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(1) and (3).) The Labor Commissioner may also bring its claims through administrative hearings (Labor Code section 98) or by citations (Labor Code section 1197.1). (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(1).)
    • Third Parties That Are Owed Fringe or Other Benefit Payments or Contribution on Behalf of Wage Claimants (Labor Unions) May Bring Action. Third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on a wage claimant’s behalf (e.g., labor unions) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for such unpaid benefit payments or contributions. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(2).)
    • It Does Not Confer Wage Claimants With Any Right to Sue Direct Contractors. AB 1701 gives the Labor Commissioner, Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and the unions standing to bring an action against the direct contractor, but it does not confer any private right of action by the wage claimants against the direct contractor.
    • Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and Labor Unions Shall Recover as Prevailing Plaintiffs Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Including Expert Fees. For actions brought by Labor-Management Cooperation Committees or labor unions, “[t]he court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in such an action its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(2)-(3).)
    • Direct Contractor’s Property May Be Attached to Pay for Judgment. AB 1701 authorizes the attachment of direct contractor’s property to pay for any judgment that is entered pursuant to this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (c).)
    • One-Year Statute of Limitation to Bring Action under This Section. Actions brought pursuant to this section must be filed within one year of the earliest of: (1) recordation of a notice of completion of the direct contract; (2) recordation of a notice of cessation of the work covered by direct contract; or (3) actual completion of work covered by direct contract. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (d).)
    • Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply. Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
    • Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply. Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
    • Further Legislative Efforts on Subdivision (h) Are Expected in 2018. Subdivision (h), which states that “[t]he obligations and remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any obligations and remedies otherwise provided by law . . .” (emphasis added) is potentially misleading since the author and sponsor of the bill have indicated that the bill is not intended to punish direct contractors with liquidated damages or penalties. As such, further legislative efforts on subdivision (h) are expected in 2018.
    ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS While workers should be paid for the work they perform, AB 1701 would place undue burden on general contractors to monitor their subcontractors’ payroll, confirm that all wages and benefits are paid timely and withhold disputed payments from non-compliant subcontractors. General contractors would also need to caution against the chain reaction that could result from such withholding, including work stoppage, increased change order requests, and an overall increase in construction costs. Finally, general contractors would need to brace themselves for at least a year after project completion against any union or a Labor-Management Cooperation Committee actions armed with a prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees and expert fees, for previously unidentified subcontractor or sub-subcontractor workers. STRATEGIES DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS SHOULD LOOK FOR In anticipation of AB 1701 being signed into law and its potentially harsh effects, developers and general contractors are advised to consult their attorneys for a review and revision of their existing contracts, to develop plans for accessing and monitoring subcontractor payroll records, and to consider strategies for mitigating claims that may be brought against them, as follows:
    • Execute all pending agreements before January 1, 2018 to avoid the effects of AB 1701;
    • Include an audit provision requiring subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to provide payroll records (at minimum, information set forth in Labor Code section 226) and project award information, regularly and/or upon request, with specific deadlines for such production, as subdivision (f) does not specify what is untimely;
    • Include defense and indemnity provisions that would require subcontractors to defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims that are brought pursuant to this section arising from labor performed by employees for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and require subcontractors to include a similar provision in their own contracts with sub-subcontractors that would require lower tier subcontractors to also defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims arising from their respective employees’ work;
    • Require subcontractors to provide a payment bond and/or a letter of credit to satisfy claims that are made against the general contractor under this section;
    • Require personal guarantees from owners, partners or key subcontractor personnel;
    • Include withholding and back-charge provisions that would allow general contractors to withhold or charge back the subcontractors for disputed amounts, for claims brought against them, and for failure to comply with the audit, bond, and guarantee requirements.
    • Consider implementing a system to confirm evidence of payments, such as signed acknowledgment of payment by each subcontractor and sub-subcontractor employees and by third parties entitled to recover fringe and other benefit payments or contribution, possibly working with electronic billing software providers to implement such system.
    Clay Tanaka is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing on construction, real estate, business and insurance disputes in both California and Nevada. As a licensed civil engineer, Clay has significant experience in design and construction of all types of construction projects, which he has effectively utilized in his litigation, trial and arbitration practice to obtain great results for his clients. For questions related to AB1701, please contact Clay Tanaka (clay.tanaka@ndlf.com) or Newport Beach Partner Mark Himmelstein (mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Tanaka may be contacted at clay.tanaka@ndlf.com

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    October 28, 2015 —
    According to The Denver Post, the Denver City Council panel advanced a proposed construction defects ordinance proposal 5-0. While “Mayor Michael Hancock and development and business interests…say protections for homeowners have depressed construction” others, such as “homeowner groups[,] have opposed the proposal vocally.” The Denver Post reported that under the ordinance, “a project could not be called defective in a civil action if it was built and maintained in conformance to the building code. Building code violations could be cited in a lawsuit only if they could be linked to actual damage or injury. And it would take the consent of a majority of condo unit owners to initiate a defects lawsuit.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    November 30, 2017 —
    The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    February 16, 2016 —
    Answering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no coverage for flanges that leaked after installation. U. S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 2015 Texas LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 4, 2015). U. S. Metals sold Exxon 350 custom-made, stainless steel, weld-neck flanges for use in refineries. Testing after installation showed the flanges leaked and did not meet industry standards. Exxon decided to replace the flanges to avoid risk of fire and explosion. For each flange, this involved stripping the temperature coating and insulation, cutting the flange out of the pipe, removing the gaskets, grinding the pipe surfaces smooth for re-welding, replacing the flange and gaskets, welding the new flange to the pipes, and replacing the temperature coating and insulation. The replacement process delayed operation of the diesel units for several weeks. Exxon sued U.S. Metal for over $6 million as the cost of replacing the flanges and $16 million as damages for lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metals settled with Exxon for $2.2 million and then sought indemnification from its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual. 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