BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration 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


    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    "Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

    Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

    After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

    For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    Experts: Best Bet in $300M Osage Nation Wind Farm Dispute Is Negotiation

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

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

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    As Natural Gas Expands in Gulf, Residents Fear Rising Damage

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
    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. Leveraging 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

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    December 02, 2019 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partner John V. O’Meara has been selected as a member of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators. This invitation resulted from a national selection process and is intended to honor the best defense attorneys in the Country. Mr. O’Meara was selected to join a group of lawyers which include past and current state bar presidents, national ABOTA Presidents, ABOTA Masters in Trial and International Academy of Trial Lawyer presidents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John O'Meara, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
    Mr. O'Meara may be contacted at jomeara@bremerwhyte.com

    Coloradoans Deserve More Than Hyperbole and Rhetoric from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; We Deserve Attainable Housing

    January 09, 2015 —
    As the 2015 Colorado legislative session gets underway, the media attention and discussion regarding the lack of attainable housing, skyrocketing rental rates, and the ongoing state and local efforts to reverse these trends have risen to a dull roar. The hyperbole and rhetoric from those who would oppose any reforms has risen to cacophonous levels. Among the most often quoted talking points from the opposition are that any changes to Colorado’s existing laws would strip homeowners of their right to seek redress for construction defects and that they would virtually insulate construction professionals from such claims. The long and the short of it is that if this year’s legislation looks anything like SB 220 from last year, nothing could be further from the truth. The two main provisions from SB 220 were: 1) protection of a construction professional’s ability to resolve construction defect claims through arbitration; and 2) requirement of informed consent of more than 50% of the owners within a common interest community before a construction defect action could begin. Neither of these changes would strip homeowners of any rights and they certainly would not insulate construction professionals from construction defect actions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    May 10, 2012 —

    The case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”

    The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”

    In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

    The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”

    Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”

    The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”

    In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Let’s Give ‘Em Sutton to Talk About: Tennessee Court Enforces Sutton Doctrine

    July 24, 2023 —
    In Patton v Pearson, No. M2022-00708-COA-RC-CV, 2023 Tenn. App. LEXIS 231, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court erred in dismissing an insurance carrier’s lawsuit against its insured’s tenant for damages sustained in a fire. While the lawsuit was filed in the name of the landlord (i.e., the insured), discovery revealed that the lawsuit was actually a subrogation lawsuit, brought by the landlord’s insurance carrier. The lower court granted the tenant’s motion for summary judgment based on the Sutton Doctrine, holding that the tenant was an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that although the lease agreement did not reference insurance, the Sutton Doctrine applied, which barred the landlord’s carrier from subrogating against the tenant. In 2016, Anita Pearson (Ms. Pearson) signed a lease agreement to rent a home in Nashville, Tennessee, which was owned by John and Melody Patton (collectively, the Pattons). The lease stated that the Pattons were not responsible for the tenant’s personal property. The lease also stated that the tenant would be responsible for any damage caused by her negligence or misuse of the home. The lease was silent as to which party would maintain property casualty insurance and regarding implied co-insured status on any policy. Ms. Pearson purchased renter’s insurance for her personal property. The Pattons secured a property casualty insurance policy for the home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    November 16, 2020 —
    If you are a contractor, you are aware of workers’ compensation immunity when it comes to injuries on the site; and, if not, you should be. It is this workers’ compensation immunity (where workers compensation is the exclusive form of liability for an injured employee) which is why a contractor should generally always want to ensure its subcontractors have workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation immunity would protect a contractor that is being sued by a subcontractor’s employees that are injured on the job. For more information on workers’ compensation immunity, please check out this article and this article. In this regard, Florida Statute s. 440.10(1)(b) provides:
    In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.
    (If the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance, the contractor is deemed the statutory employer and its workers’ compensation insurance would apply. Otherwise, the subcontractor’s workers compensation insurance would apply.) 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

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    October 01, 2013 —
    The New York Times reports that building permits in August were at their highest since May 2008, even despite a recent rise in mortgage rates. Construction starts on single-family homes were at their highest in six months as well. On the other hand, construction starts for condominiums and apartments fell slightly more than 11 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASCE Joins White House Summit on Building Climate-Resilient Communities

    October 09, 2023 —
    RESTON, Va. – The White House Climate Policy Office hosted the Summit on Building Climate Resilient Communities today and unveiled its National Climate Resilience Framework for communities to build more resiliently as they face increasingly severe weather events. The framework features comprehensive recommendations and opportunities for action, including partnerships between federal agencies and leading standards development organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), to improve the resilience of buildings and other infrastructure. ASCE president Maria Lehman, P.E., was in attendance for the Summit. ASCE's most widely adopted standard, ASCE 7-22, is the primary reference of structural design requirements in all U.S. building codes and is updated every six years to reflect the latest data and trends presented by an ever-changing climate. Its most recent update, published in 2022, includes updates to environmental hazards used for building design including new wind speeds along the hurricane coastline, a completely new chapter for tornado loads, and the most substantial update to its chapter on flood loads since the inception of ASCE 7-22 – calling for structures to be built to withstand 500-year floods rather than the previous standard of 100-year flood mitigation. Although modern codes and standards, such as ASCE 7-22, can mitigate climate hazards, many communities throughout the U.S. have not yet adopted these practices. The new White House framework calls for ensuring federal funding requires climate-resilient infrastructure investments by encouraging government at all levels to adopt consensus-based engineering standards, which would go a long way towards addressing vulnerabilities posed by future climate impacts. ASCE, in conjunction with industry leaders represented at the Summit, supports federal efforts to improve climate data, enforce the most stringent codes and standards, and provide technical assistance to building and infrastructure stakeholders. To learn more about environmental hazard mitigation resources, follow ASCE's Pathways to Resilient Communities Toolkit, a plain-language guide for federal, state, and local leaders as they seek out standards, best practices, data, and strategies that can be implemented to safeguard communities across the country from increasingly severe weather events. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    September 10, 2018 —
    In a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion. The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of