BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom homes Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut tract home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut office building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut retail construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominiums Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut production housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut industrial building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut parking structure Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut institutional building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominium Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    New Mexico Architect Is Tuned Into His State

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

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

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2020

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    Intentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an Occurrence

    Are COVID-19 Claims Covered by Builders Risk Insurance Policies?

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

    Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Consultant Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    August 31, 2020 —
    Maine’s Supreme Court cleared the way for construction to begin on the nearly $1-billion, 145-mile high voltage transmission line that will feed hydroelectric power from Quebec into the New England power grid. Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    September 21, 2020 —
    I discussed several of the statutory changes affecting the construction industry here at Construction Law Musings in the run-up to July 1, 2020. One of those changes, an amendment to Virginia Code Section 43-13, may add another arrow to the collection quiver of subcontractors and suppliers. As part of the previously-linked rundown, I highlighted one of the big additions in 2020, namely the amendment making those pesky clauses that let those up the payment chain from you hold money on “this or any other project” void as against public policy. The other big addition to 43-13 is the change that adds a possible civil cause of action for downstream and unpaid subcontractors and suppliers in the event that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor are not first used to pay their downstream contractors and suppliers. Prior to July 1, 2020, this statute provided criminal penalties for such behavior but did not contain the possibility of a civil penalty. The operative language for the change is as follows:
    The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director, or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure for any other purpose than paying such amounts due on the project shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project.
    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

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    November 30, 2020 —
    Largely in the federal contract arena, there is a theory referred to as “cumulative impacts” used by a contractor to recover unforeseeable costs associated with a multitude of changes that have an overwhelming ripple effect on its efficiency, particularly efficiency dealing with its original, base contract work. In other words, by dealing with extensive changes, there is an unforeseeable impact imposed on the contractor relative to its unchanged or base contract work. Under this theory, the contractor oftentimes prices its cumulative impact under a total cost approach with an examination on its cost overrun. However, this is not an easy theory to prevail on because there needs to be a focus on the sheer number of changes, causation supporting the impact, and whether there were concurrent impacts or delays that played a role in the ripple effect. See, e.g., Appeals of J.A. Jones Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA P 31000 (July 7, 2000) (“However, in the vast majority of cases such claims are routinely denied because there were an insufficient number of changes, contractor-caused concurrent delays, disruptions and inefficiencies and/or a general absence of evidence of causation and impact.”). To best articulate how the cumulative impact theory has been defined, I want to include language directly from courts and board of contract appeals that have dealt with this theory. This way the contractor knows how to best work with their experts with this definition in mind–and, yes, experts will be needed–to persuasively package and establish causation and damages stemming from the multitude of changes. While many of these definitions are worded differently, you will see they have the same focus dealing with the unforeseeable ripple effect of the extensive changes. 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

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    January 18, 2021 —
    Withholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness. “Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available. This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Congratulations 2020 DE, MA, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    November 16, 2020 —
    Sixteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eleven received "Rising Star" designations. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas

    January 18, 2021 —
    Developers of the $1.66-billion MSG Sphere in Las Vegas have removed AECOM as general contractor on the project and will bring construction management in-house for the 875,000-sq-ft entertainment venue, according to a Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. statement released Dec. 17. Reprinted courtesy of Doug Puppel, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    November 30, 2020 —
    Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis. 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