BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Construction Termination Issues Part 6: This is the End (Tips for The Design Professional)

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

    Cold Weather Causes Power Blackouts, Disruptions on Jobsites

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    Repairs to Water Infrastructure Underway After Hurricane Helene

    How Palm Beach Balances Mansion Politics Against Climate Change

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    In Phoenix, Crews Thread Needle With $730M Broadway Curve Revamp

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    Daily Construction Reports: Don’t Leave the Job Without Them

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021
    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

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    August 03, 2022 —
    Takeaways
    • The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
    • The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
    • The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
    Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

    August 30, 2021 —
    Best Lawyers has selected 48 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 27 offices for inclusion in its list of 2022 Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners as "Lawyers of the Year": Cleveland/Akron Partner John F. Hill (Bet-the-Company Litigation); San Diego Partner Marilyn R. Moriarty (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); Portland Managing Partner Eric J. Neiman (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Sacramento Partner Eric J. Stiff (Corporate Law). Please join us in congratulating these four partners and the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition. Seattle Partner Randy J. Aliment: Commercial Litigation
  • Reno Managing Partner Jack G. Angaran: Insurance Law, Litigation - Construction, Litigation - Real Estate
  • Los Angeles Partner Brian G. Arnold: Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent
  • Los Angeles/Orange County Partner John L. Barber: Employment Law - Management, Litigation - Labor and Employment
  • Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    September 01, 2011 —

    In Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., No. 26909 (S.C. Aug. 22, 2011), insured Crossman was the developer and general contractor of several condominium projects constructed by Crossman’s subcontractors over multiple years. After completion, Crossman was sued by homeowners alleging negligent construction of exterior components resulting in moisture penetration property damage to non-defective components occurring during multiple years.  Crossman settled the underlying lawsuit and then filed suit against its CGL insurers to recover the settlement amount.  Crossman settled with all of the insurers except for Harleysville.  Crossman and Harleysville stipulated that the only coverage issue was whether there was an “occurrence.”  The trial court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Crossman, determining that there was an “occurrence.” The trial court also ruled that Harleysville was liable for the entire settlement amount without offset for the amounts paid by the other insurers.  

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” List

    February 26, 2024 —
    Atlanta, Ga. (February 9, 2024) – Atlanta Partner Candis R. Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful law professionals in Atlanta. This is the fourth year in a row she has received this recognition. To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionaries who led programs for their communities and created opportunities for employees. According to Atlanta Magazine, this list is “an anthology of the power that resides in Atlanta.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    September 13, 2021 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, and Karen Baytosh have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, and Associate Matthew Cox has been included in the Second Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Each person is being recognized for their diligent work in the areas of Family Law, Construction, Commercial, and Personal Injury Litigation. Best Lawyers is the most respected peer-review publication in the history of the legal profession. Acknowledgment in both The Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch edition is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, bestowed on a lawyer by his or her peers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

    March 12, 2014 —
    Last July in Dearborn, Michigan, “torrential rain” caused flooding to hundreds of basements, according to Press & Guide. Of the 250 claims filed by residents, “the city determined that about 150 were caused by defects in its water or sewer lines. About 125 of the claims to be settled are for more than $3,000; 26 are for $3,000 or less.” Press & Guide reported that “Attorney Tarek Baydoun, who is representing some clients whose basements flooded, asked about recourse for ‘botched’ claims, and was concerned because the city hasn’t released the list of those with whom it is settling.” The Mayor, Jack O’Reilly, stated that the law department would release the list to the city council. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

    February 03, 2020 —
    In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. 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

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    August 27, 2014 —
    Mike Bosse of Bernstein Shur, analyzed a case involving Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. (KBR) and the U.S. Army for services that KBR provided during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to JDSupra Business Advisor: “The court case involved KBR’s construction of dining facility services near Mosul, Iraq under a cost-plus fee arrangement. Under this contractual arrangement, all allowable costs were reimbursed by the government plus the contractor was paid an additional fee.” KBR first started on a prefabricated metal dining hall that would serve 2,500 people, but part way into building they were told to stop construction and to instead start on a new reinforced concrete building that would serve almost three times as many people. “After construction was finished, a defense contract auditing agency suspended some of the payments to KBR and instead of the $12.5 million it expected to receive, KBR was paid only $6.7 million,” reported JDSupra Business Advisor. “After trial, the court concluded KBR did not meet its burden to show the costs it incurred were reasonable under the circumstances.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of