BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco 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


    Candlebrook Adds Dormitories With $230 Million Purchase

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

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

    The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

    New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (07/05/23) – A Hospitality Strike in Southern California, Agencies Step in With Lenders and the Social in ESG

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    Select the Best Contract Model to Mitigate Risk and Achieve Energy Project Success

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    Buyers Are Flocking to NYC’s Suburbs. Too Bad There Aren’t Many Homes to Sell.

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous
    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

    Congratulations to Partner Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Nevada!

    July 02, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Las Vegas Partner Madeline Arcellana was once again selected by Nevada Business Magazine as a Top Rank Attorney in Nevada for her work in Civil Litigation, General Liability, and Personal Injury! Nevada Business Magazine‘s Top Rank Attorneys list is comprised of attorneys in both private and public practice who are voted for by nearly 3,000 Nevada-licensed attorneys. The attorneys on this list are at the top of their field and each nomination is put through an extensive verification process. To view Nevada’s 2024 Top Rank Attorneys, please click here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    November 03, 2016 —
    In a public works dispute in Massachusetts, a Massachusetts Court judge ruled that a general contractor could not recover any of its over $14 million claim against a public owner because it had violated its contract with the Owner by certifying that it had paid its subcontractors in full and on time when in fact it had not.[i] The case involves a contract dispute arising from a state and federally-funded project to design and construct a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts. The Owner was a state development agency established and organized to receive both state and federal funding to build a 1,200–mile fiber optic network known as MassBroadband123 in Western Massachusetts (the Project). Of that amount, $45.4 million was awarded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). One of the stated goals of ARRA was (as its title suggests) to create jobs in the wake of the 2008 recession and to provide a direct financial boost to those impacted by the economic crisis. In the context of the instant case, that meant that, if there were to be subcontractors on the job providing labor and materials, they needed to be paid on a timely basis in keeping with the statutory purpose of stimulating the economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki James Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    May 22, 2023 —
    Program coordinators Katie Kohm and Peter Marino put together an amazing annual meeting last week in Vancouver. While its impossible to retread all of the ground we covered in discussing the "future of construction law," here are my top 10 take-aways: 10. Public-private partnerships may finally be taking off in the United States. P3s were slow to be pursued within the United States. According to panelists Peter Hahn, John Heuer, Sean Morley, and Lee Weintraub, this was chiefly because of the reticence of public bodies to deviate from the standard vendor model. Looking at the recent trends, it seems as though the United States--the "sleeping giant of public-private partnerships"--may finally be waking up. In 2022, a total of 29 public-private partnership projects were signed or reached financial close within the United States, representing an increase of 16% from the prior year. Thirty-eight states also now have some form of P3 enabling legislation. While we still lag behind our Canadian cousins, the future of P3s in this country is looking a little brighter. 9. The value proposition for the architecture profession is broken. Architects Lakisha Ann Woods (the CEO of AIA) and Phillip Bernstein (Associate Dean & Professor Adjunct Yale University) shared their thoughts with moderator Kelly Bundy on the challenges facing the architecture profession. The biggest issue they noted was the need to recruit qualified (and diverse) candidates into the profession. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do given the long career track (on average, it becomes 13.1 years to become a licensed architect) and the low salaries paid compared to other professions. Phillip shared that the high average starting salary for architecture grads from Yale (one of the leading programs in the country) is just $76,000. If we want to recruit the best and most innovative candidates into the field, the value proposition needs to change. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    April 10, 2023 —
    In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    November 21, 2018 —
    Nov. 15, 2018 Update: After calling on Nov. 8 for a “complete structural evaluation” of San Francisco's 1.2-million-sq-ft SalesForce Transit Center, following the discovery on Sept. 25 of significant, mid-span cracks in the bottom flanges of twin parallel girders spanning 80 ft over Fremont Street, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority now says the problems with girders are localized. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    Residential Interior Decorator Was Entitled to Lien and Was Not Engaging in Unlicensed Contracting

    August 04, 2021 —
    Residential construction disputes can sometimes take nasty turns. This is not attributed to one specific reason, but a variety of factors. Sometimes, there are not sophisticated contracts (or contracts at all). Sometimes, relationships and roles get blurred. Sometimes, parties try to skirt licensure requirements. Sometimes, a party is just unreasonable as to their expectations. And, sometimes, a party tries to leverage a construction lien to get what they want. In all disputes, a party would certainly be best suited to work with construction counsel that has experience navigating construction disputes. An example of a construction dispute that took a nasty turn involving an interior decorator is SG 2901, LLC v. Complimenti, Inc., 2021 WL 2672295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). In this case, a condominium unit owner wanted to renovate his apartment. He hired an interior decorator to assist. As his renovation plans became more expansive, the interior decorator told him he would need to hire a licensed contractor and architect. The interior decorator arranged a meeting with those professionals and, at that meeting, they were hired by the owner and told to deal directly with the interior decorator, almost in an owner’s representative capacity since the owner traveled a lot. The interior decorator e-mailed the owner about status and requested certain authorizations, as one would expect an owner’s representative to do. At the completion of the renovation job, the owner did not pay the interior decorator because he was unhappy with certain renovations. The interior decorator recorded a construction lien and sued the owner which included a lien foreclosure claim. There was no discussion of the contracts in this case because, presumably, contracts were based on proposals, were bare-boned, or were oral. 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

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    May 03, 2017 —
    After four failed attempts, Colorado legislators have finally reached a compromise on construction defect legislation. This afternoon, HB17-1279 gained unanimous approval from the House Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. The bill is expected to pass both chambers easily and be signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper. Proponents say that a bill is needed spur more condominium construction in the state. They contend that homebuilders have been reluctant to construct multifamily projects in recent years based on a perceived fear that small groups of homeowners can file lawsuits in the name of their community associations without adequate the consent of other members. A 2013 study found that quality control and insurance costs only reduce homebuilder profits by a small amount, but concerns about litigation have nevertheless prompted some construction professionals to focus on constructing apartments and other products. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    March 18, 2019 —
    In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com