BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect 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


    Reinventing the Building Envelope – Interview with Gordon A Geddes

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable

    Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

    NARI Addresses Construction Defect Claim Issues for Remodeling Contractors

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    Digital Twins for a Safer Built Environment

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces

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

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

    Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    March 22, 2021 —
    In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    February 28, 2018 —
    The Eleventh Circuit, in Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc., No. 17-12660, 2018 WL 834896, at * 3-4 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) (per curiam), recently held under Florida law that a homebuilder’s alleged failure to implement a proper drainage system that allowed for neighborhood flooding triggered a general liability insurer’s duty to defend because the allegations involved a potentially covered loss of use of covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Katherine E. Miller, Hunton & Williams and Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams Ms. Miller may be contacted at kmiller@hunton.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    June 17, 2015 —
    While Construction Dive reported that it’s rare for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute employers for on-the-job deaths, the DOJ “plans to prosecute the owner of a Philadelphia roofing company for alleged crimes that the government claims led to the death of a construction worker.” According to Construction Dive, James J. McCullaugh, owner of James J. McCullagh Roofing Inc. has been accused of lying to US. Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigators “in an attempt to cover up his company’s failure to provide required fall protection for a man – Mark T. Smith – who died after falling 45 feet from a church roof in 2013. Two other workers said no fall protection was provided.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

    February 16, 2017 —
    Every year, Engineering News-Record (ENR) honors young professionals who are making a big splash in the construction industry. This year, ENR named Whitney Stefko to its list of individuals who represent the best of the best in the construction industry. In its feature article, “Top Young Professionals Make a Big Impact in Construction Industry,” Stefko is recognized for her expertise in professional liability and construction defense law, and her success in representing hundreds of cases on behalf of developers, general contractors, subcontractors and design professionals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!

    October 09, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte has been elected to the Orange County Bar Associations (“OCBA”) slate of four open Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning January 2024, alongside Casey Johnson (Aitken Aitken Cohn LLP), William O’Neill (Ross, Wolcott, Teinert & Prout LLP), and Lesley Young (Orange County District Attorney’s Office). “It is one of the greatest honors of my career to have been elected to the OCBA board of directors. Thank you to all those who supported me; I will work tirelessly as your representative to serve our bar and community. I am especially excited to work alongside President Elect Christina Zabat-Fran and the other esteemed members of the board. I look forward to applying my skills and knowledge to serve our legal community as we work to promote excellence, integrity and honor in our profession, and to improve the practice for all.” – Nicole Whyte Nicole is honored to have the opportunity to continue her support with the OC legal community. For over two decades, she has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards. Nicole currently serves on the board of OCBA Master’s Division and is the 2023 Board President of the Public Law Center, the largest pro-bono law firm in Orange County. She is also a current board member of the Sonenshine Pro Bono Committee. Nicole is a founding fellow of the OC Bar Foundation and served as secretary for the Robert Banyard Inn of Court for eight years. Nicole plans to call upon her experience serving on various boards, and her many years of law practice and management experience, to help identify and support the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

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

    July 19, 2021 —
    This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court decided this regulatory “takings” case, and, in a Per Curium opinion, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that that petitioners had to exhaust their state administrative remedies before they could file this lawsuit under 42 USC Section 1983. The City government had already come to a sufficient regulatory conclusion, and the Constitution does not require additional processing. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit ignored last term’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    State-Fed Fight Heats Up Over Building Private Nuclear Disposal Sites

    August 03, 2022 —
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Interim Storage Partners, a joint venture that gained a federal license last year to build an interim storage facility for spent commercial nuclear fuel at a Texas site, have until Aug. 3 to answer a federal lawsuit claim by state officials that a new U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminates the federal agency’s licensing authority. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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