BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultant
    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


    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    Property Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not Covered

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

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

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

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

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

    Lauren Motola-Davis Honored By Providence Business News as a 2021 Leader & Achiever

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States

    2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers
    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

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    June 15, 2020 —
    In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

    The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!

    June 04, 2024 —
    Partner Daniel Crespo and Associate Theresa Mallen secured a total defense award in arbitration. Our client is a high-end custom home builder with a decades-long flawless record of museum quality construction. Our client was accused of performing substandard construction and the homeowners asserted a multiple million-dollar cost of repair. We took a zero-liability position and argued that the alleged defects were not defects at all but were rather mere reflections of an incomplete project. In sum, our client was forced to terminate the contract and cease construction due to the homeowners’ failure to make progress payments as they became due. The arbitration endured 16 days of testimony scattered over the course of 7 months. Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled that there were no construction defects at the project and that the homeowners “shall take nothing.” The arbitrator also ruled in favor of our client on its affirmative claim for monies owed by the homeowners’ breach of contract plus interest. A total victory for our client. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Good Indoor Air Quality Keeps Workers Healthy and Happy

    June 10, 2024 —
    Most people primarily think of air conditioners as appliances to keep people cool. However, a 2024 study of office air conditioners shows that they promote indoor air quality by minimizing the harmful effects of bushfire smoke. The research indicated air conditioners used in office environments can trap particles and reduce people’s exposure to harmful elements such as sulfates and nitrates. The researchers collected particulate matter from commercial air conditioner filters during the peak bushfire season in Australia. Evaluations showed the daily particulate matter levels were usually two to three times the average amount. However, some hourly maximums were 10.5 times the usual. The team took samples for four months, finding the specimens exceeded national air quality standards 19% of the time. Analyses performed in a university showed commercially available air filters captured significant amounts of bushfire smoke, reducing the associated hazards for building occupants. Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Gabel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser for Being Recognized as 2022 Super Lawyers!

    February 07, 2022 —
    BWB&O is proud to announce that Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser have been named as 2022 Southern California’s Super Lawyers! We are also honored to share that Nicole Whyte is included in two of the top lists, Top 50 Women Lawyers in Southern California and Top 50 Lawyers in Orange County! Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. During the final selection process, only lawyers in the top 5% of the total lawyers in the state are selected to the Super Lawyers list. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    March 09, 2020 —
    Indemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement. Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:
    • Have you included all necessary parties?
      • Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
      • A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard Mullin
    Ms. Oleson may be contacted at AOleson@sheppardmullin.com

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    June 11, 2018 —
    Richard Glucksman, Esquire, Partner of the Los Angeles firm Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger, will be moderating the panel, “Green Building/LEED: An Overview and Claims Discussion” at the Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. The panel will be discussing the following topics:
    • Risk and claims case studies including solar and SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels)
    • Green Building/LEED and The Law: Review of National Claims/Lawsuits
    • AIA Documents for Sustainable Projects
    Thursday, June 21st, 2018 Four Seasons Hotel 3960 S Las Vegas Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89119 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

    August 01, 2023 —
    Contractors appreciate how difficult it often is on a technical level to perform work in or near wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas. Such work is even more difficult due to the complex, and ever-changing regulations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA applies to “navigable waters”, which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” To determine whether certain wetlands are in fact “the waters of the United States”, contractors and owners have had to engage in a fact-intensive “significant-nexus” determination dependent upon a lengthy list of hydrological and ecological factors found in the regulations. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the applicability of those regulations and instituted a simpler test to determine whether wetlands on an owner’s property fall within them. In Sackett v. EPA, the Sacketts purchased property near a lake in Idaho. In preparation for building a home, they began backfilling the site with dirt and rocks. A few months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order informing them that their backfilling violated the CWA because their property was part of protected wetlands. The EPA demanded that the Sacketts immediately undertake activities to restore the site and threatened the Sacketts with penalties of over $40,000 per day if they did not comply. According to the EPA, the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot fell under the jurisdiction of the CWA because they were “adjacent to” (i.e., in the same neighborhood as) an unnamed tributary on the other side of a 30-foot road, which fed into the nearby lake. The EPA concluded that the Sacketts’ wetlands, when considered together with a large nearby wetland complex, significantly affected the ecology of the lake. Thus, the EPA charged that the Sacketts had illegally dumped soil and gravel into “the waters of the United States.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson PC
    Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    December 13, 2021 —
    On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
    • The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
    • The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com