BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut office building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut industrial building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut condominiums Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut retail construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut parking structure Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut tract home Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut Medical building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut production housing Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut custom homes Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut institutional building Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut casino resort Building Consultant Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineerFairfield Connecticut defective construction expert
    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


    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Mediation is (Almost) Always Worth a Shot

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    What ENR.com Construction News Gained the Most Views

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Road Project to Improve Access to Peru's Machu Picchu Site

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Subcontractor Exception to "Your Work" Exclusion Does Not Apply to Coverage Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

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

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named for Top-Tier Practice Areas in 2018 U.S. News – Best Law Firms List

    Contractor Owed a Defense

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

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

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?

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

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test
    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

    DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

    July 15, 2024 —
    In a bit of a major freak-out this past Friday, June 28, 2024, public works contractors with Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) registrations expiring on June 30, 2024 were unable to renew their public works registrations. Those who had submitted checks were not receiving responses, DIR was not accepting online payments, and there was no telephone number or address to contact the DIR about the issue. This, of course, could have been a big deal since Labor Code section 1725.5 prohibits contractors and subcontractors from bidding on, being listed in a bid, or being awarded a public works contract unless registered with the DIR. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    October 28, 2024 —
    We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. This prestigious accolade is a testament to Lisa’s dedication, expertise, and unwavering commitment to achieving the best outcomes for our clients. Lisa, a Partner at Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell (“HHMR”), has long been a leader in construction defect litigation, defending builders, contractors, developers, and design professionals in Colorado’s complex legal landscape. Her deep understanding of the industry and her relentless pursuit of practical, cost-effective solutions have earned her the respect of peers, clients, insurers, mediators, arbitrators, and courts alike. As noted by Law Week Colorado: “For over two decades, Lisa Dunn has represented developers, contractors and subcontractors in construction-related disputes. Dunn has spoken across the country on construction and insurance matters, and she’s worked on several appellate cases during her career. She’s admitted in four states, and has consulted and represented some of the nation’s largest builders.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    July 22, 2024 —
    Seyfarth Synopsis: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued guidance tailored to the construction industry regarding compliance with anti-harassment laws. This lines up with our prediction in early 2024 that the EEOC had put the construction industry squarely in its sights. The guidance is important for construction-industry leaders and employers to understand to prevent and remedy workplace harassment, and to avoid potential harassment liability. On June 18, 2024, the EEOC issued its Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. This guidance provides key recommendations that construction-industry leaders and employers should consider implementing to prevent and address harassment in the workplace, and avoid being the target of the EEOC’s enforcement efforts. The guidance is intended to supplement the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for fiscal years 2024-2028, which provides direction on the EEOC’s current objectives, principles, and enforcement efforts – among them, increasing diversity in the construction industry and remedying harassment. (We’ve written previously about the proposed and final SEP.) Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kelleher, Seyfarth and Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth Mr. Kelleher may be contacted at ckelleher@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

    Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

    August 19, 2024 —
    Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:
    1. Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
    2. Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
    3. Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    August 12, 2024 —
    For those of you familiar with Construction Law Musings, you are aware of my affinity and discussion of those powerful but tricky collection tools: mechanic’s liens. You have heard me tout their ability to secure payment when a contractor or subcontractor has not been paid on a construction project (even in the face of bankruptcy). If you read my construction law blog regularly (though recently not-so-regularly updated), you could get the impression that a mechanic’s lien is an automatic avenue to payment. While mechanic’s liens can be a powerful collection tool, this post is going to discuss some pros and cons of recording, and ultimately suing to enforce, a mechanic’s lien in Virginia. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    September 16, 2024 —
    Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract. Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state. A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved? Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    October 01, 2024 —
    A federal government contractor in Jackson Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 62 Fed.Cl. 84 (Fed.Cl. 2024) sought delay damages against the government. It lost. The reason for the loss is a crucial reminder that documents parties sign ALWAYS matter. ALWAYS!! In Jackson Construction Co., the contractor’s delay claim was premised on relocating a waterline. The contractor, however, received additional money for relocating the waterline, but no additional time, and this was memorialized in a modification to the contract (i.e., a change order). In executing the modification for the additional work, the contractor did NOT reserve rights for time or money. Indeed, the modification reflected that the monetary adjustment constitutes full compensation for the additional work including delay, namely:
    The contract period of performance remains the same. It is further understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full on behalf of the contractor and his subcontractors and suppliers for all costs and markup directly or indirectly, including extended overhead, attributable to the change order, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the change within the time frame stated.
    Jackson Construction Co., supra, at 90.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    September 16, 2024 —
    “The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
    Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com