BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    Flood Insurance Claim Filed in State Court Properly Dismissed

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    School for Building Trades Helps Fill Need for Skilled Workers

    Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot

    Connecting IoT Data to BIM

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos

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

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

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal
    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

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    November 29, 2021 —
    The Miller Act (the “Act”), which requires the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond to the government, protects “all persons supplying labor and materials carrying out the work provided for in the contract.”[1] Despite its broad language, courts have limited the parties who may actually assert a claim under the Act. This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors. Brief Background of the Miller Act Under the Miller Act, there are two types of bonds the prime contractor furnishes to the government in a federal construction contract of more than $100,000[2] 1. Performance Bond A performance bond protects the United States and guarantees the completion of the project in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.[3] This bond must be with a surety that is satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract and in the amount the officer considers adequate for government protection.[4] If a contractor abandons a project or fails to perform, the bond itself will cover the government’s cost of substitute performance. Thus, the performance bond disincentivizes contractors from abandoning projects and provides the government with reassurance that an abandonment will not create delays or additional expenses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Ms. McGraw may be contacted at dmcgraw@foxrothschild.com

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    January 24, 2018 —
    Reaction to the recent California Supreme Court ruling in McMillin Albany LLC v. The Superior Court of Kern County has been both swift and diverse, with many notable California law firms weighing in on the potential impact this landmark ruling may have on the Construction Industry and construction defect litigation. In our ongoing desire to serve as a meaningful and comprehensive provider of news and information for Construction and Claims Professionals, we have included a selected number of the submissions we have received regarding this very important judicial ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    May 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (April 25, 2023) - On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals by several major energy companies that sought to remove lawsuits filed by state and local governments from state court into federal court. The Court’s certiorari denials reject companies’ appeals in five separate cases, which involved claims brought by municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each municipality claims that it has been harmed by the effects of climate change, allegedly attributed to the companies’ carbon emissions. The Court’s denials effectively allow the lawsuits to continue in state court, often seen as favorable for plaintiffs due to a greater potential for jury trials and associated damages awards than might be available in federal court. Following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in a related case that granted the companies an additional chance to argue that their cases should be heard in federal court, the lower federal appeals courts in each of the five cases concluded that the companies had not established sufficient grounds to establish proper venue and jurisdiction in federal court. The Supreme Court’s April 24 denial leaves those decisions unaltered, allowing the lawsuits to continue in state court for further consideration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Leahy, Lewis Brisbois

    BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!

    March 13, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner, Jack Briscoe and Associate, Anoushe Marandjian obtained an order for summary judgment in a multi-theory liability action in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when he fell off a ladder while performing finish carpentry work at the home of BWB&O’s client. Plaintiff alleged various theories of liability against our client, the homeowner, including that: our client supplied a dangerous and defective ladder that, among other things, was unstable and not tall enough for the job; that the floor was covered with a slippery plastic sheeting hidden underneath construction paper which constituted a dangerous condition; that our client was his “employer” under the Labor Code; and that our client was civilly liable on the basis that he had directly hired Plaintiff, who was an unlicensed contractor. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleged that our client was vicariously liable for the conduct of his general contractor, who failed to maintain worker’s compensation insurance covering Plaintiff. After several rounds of written discovery, which required extensive attempts to “meet and confer” over Plaintiff’s deficient responses, as well as the parties’ depositions, Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Marandjian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client on various grounds, including that the Privette Doctrine precluded Plaintiff from recovery against our client and that our client was not negligent (there was no dangerous condition and if there was, our client did not create it or that it existed for a long enough time for our client to have discovered it and remedied it). Plaintiff’s Opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment included a Declaration from an expert witness alleging various grounds upon which our client was liable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    December 09, 2011 —

    Our congratulations to Tred Eyerly who has been blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii for five years now. Over the years, he has posted more than five hundred posts and has provided us all with fascinating insights into the laws on insurance coverage. He describes his blog as “a commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond.” We are grateful that the “beyond” has just in the last few weeks included Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, and Rhode Island (about as far from the island of Hawaii as you can get).

    You can read his blog at Insurance Law Hawaii.

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

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    November 07, 2012 —
    After buying a home in Louisiana, Mike Gines determined that the home’s air conditioning unit was insufficient to maintain an appropriate temperature. He contacted the home builder, D.R. Horton, Inc., which worked with the air conditioning installer, Reliant Heating & Air Conditioning, in order to repair the system. When the problems persisted, Gines filed a class action petition against Horton and Reliant in state court. Horton and Reliant moved the case to the federal courts, whereupon Gines asserted the defendants were in violation of the Louisiana New Home Warranty Act (NHWA). Horton stated that the claim under the NHWA was invalid, because Gines had not alleged actual physical damage to his home. The district court granted Horton’s motion to dismiss. Gines sought a reversal from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and sought to have two questions of state law addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The district court ruled that the NHWA was the “sole remedy under Louisiana law for a purchaser of a new home with construction defects. Gines argued that court erred in this, but also conceded that this was the conclusion of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Further, Gines argued that a provision in the NHWA that allows the inclusion of construction defects that do not cause damage was satisfied by paragraph 6 of the contract. The court noted that Gines did not attach a copy of the contract to either the original or amended complaint, and so the court does not need to address these claims. However, the court cautioned that if a copy had been included, they still would have rejected the claim, as “the cited language does not indicate a waiver of the physical damage requirement.” They also note that “paragraph 13 of the contract shows that Gines was aware to the absence of any such waiver in the contract.” The court concludes that “the moral of this story is that in order to avoid the harsh result that has obtained here, the buyer of a newly constructed home in Louisiana should seek to obtain in the contract of sale an express waiver of the actual damage requirement of the NHWA.” The appeals court affirmed the decision of the circuit court and denied the application to certify questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bally's Secures Funding for $1.7B Chicago Casino and Hotel Project

    August 12, 2024 —
    Plans for a $1.7-billion casino and adjacent 34-story hotel are advancing in Chicago as the gaming operator reports it has secured $940 million to complete funding for the project and has set demolition for a printing press building now occupying the site for this summer. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    October 08, 2014 —
    In Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold. The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic and Blythe Golay Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of