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


    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    There is No Presumptive Resumption!

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    Corporate Formalities: A Necessary Part of Business

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

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

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

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

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    Governor Ducey Vetoes Water and Development Bills

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act

    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

    Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern Architect
    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. Drawing 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

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    May 22, 2014 —
    According to Architectural Record, the Harmon Hotel, part of the CityCenter hotel-casino-entertainment complex on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, “is being razed without ever opening.” MGM Resorts International will be demolishing “the unfinished 27-floor, oval-shaped tower following a protracted legal battle with its contractor, Tutor Perini Corp., over building defects.” Demolition is expected to cost $11.5 million, while the “incomplete construction” had cost $279 million. Problems for the hotel began after the discovery “that reinforcing steel was improperly installed on 15 building floors during construction.” Architectural Record reported that a third-party inspector “had falsified 62 daily reports between March and July of 2008 stating that things were okay when they were not. The findings prompted a temporary project shut-down and eventual building redesign.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    February 22, 2021 —
    If you have read prior articles (see here and here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.
    [W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
    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

    Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

    November 25, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is very proud to announce that Nick Rodriguez has been promoted to the position of partner with the firm! Nick has been with BWB&O since 2019 and is licensed to practice law in California and the U.S. District Courts. Nick’s practice focuses on complex construction defect matters, as well as personal injury and wrongful death claims. During his time with the firm, Nick has successfully represented numerous clients through alternative dispute resolution and has taken matters to trial where he has received favorable jury verdicts. He also supervises and manages a team of associates in the Newport Beach office. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    October 26, 2020 —
    On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    March 01, 2021 —
    New York law has historically allowed insurers to recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured if there is ultimately no coverage for the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement. On December 30, 2020, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department declined to follow this longstanding principle in American Western Home Insurance Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co.,1 by holding that the insurer was not entitled to recoup defense costs, even where it was determined that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy. In American W. Home Ins. Co., the insureds were named as defendants in an underlying personal injury action. More than four years after the accident, and a $900,000 default judgment against the insureds, they tendered the lawsuit to their commercial general liability insurer, American Western Home Insurance Company (“American”). American denied coverage based on untimely notice, but after the default judgment was subsequently vacated, it agreed to defend the underlying action subject to a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights specifically reserved American’s right to deny coverage if the vacatur of the default judgment against the insureds was reversed. Further, American reserved its right to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    December 10, 2024 —
    As an appellate practitioner, I am keenly aware that sometimes, a procedural matter can doom what would otherwise be a meritorious issue for appeal. Trial attorneys are well-advised to check and double-check procedural rules and case law governing the issues in their cases. Here’s a few recent developments to be aware of. The record on appeal: electronic recordings now available in Santa Clara County. It should not be news to anyone that it is the appellant’s burden to produce an adequate record for appeal. That includes not just the written submissions to the trial court, but also reporter’s transcripts of all proceedings that could have a substantive impact on your case. If you do not have a court reporter present for your hearing, you will be struck trying your best to get an agreed statement or a settled statement should the case go up on appeal. Believe me, that can be a serious challenge. Any omissions or deficiencies are going to result in presumptions made against the appellant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Suzanne M. Nicholson, Wilke Fleury
    Ms. Nicholson may be contacted at snicholson@wilkefleury.com

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

    October 15, 2024 —
    Artificial intelligence, data centers, carbon removal and zero-emission power may sound like a winning line (plus the Free Space) on a 2024 Buzzword Bingo card. But the concepts have come into dramatic real-world tension as private and public actors seek to accommodate the digital and environmental imperatives for green energy. After years of fairly stable demand, punctuated by declines during the pandemic and economic slumps, electricity demand is projected to double by 2050. A principal cause is the rapid expansion in the power needed to energize and cool servers amid explosive growth in the number and size of data centers, crypto miners, and other point sources of computation. Data centers were 3% of U.S. demand and are projected to be up to 9% or more by 2030; AI will drive a 160% surge in data center demand by 2030. A commentator notes, “We haven’t seen [growth like] this in a generation.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

    June 07, 2021 —
    Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois