BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield 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


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

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Thank You for 14 Consecutive Years of Legal Elite Elections

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

    Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act Provides New Opportunities for Owners, Developers, and Contractors

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree

    Wilke Fleury and Attorneys Recognized as ‘Best Law Firm’ and ‘Best Lawyers’ by U.S. News!

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

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

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

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

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners
    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

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    January 21, 2015 —
    On January 8, 2015, the Second Appellate district affirmed judgment of the lower court in State Ready Mix Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, and barred a concrete supplier from blaming a third party consultant for the concrete supplier's failure to deliver concrete that met project specifications. In 2012, Major Engineering Marine, Inc. was hired by a project manager to construct a harbor pier in the Channel Islands Harbor. Major hired State Ready Mix, Inc. to supply the concrete for the project. State wrote and submitted a concrete mix design and, at the request of Major, civil engineer Moffatt & Nichol reviewed and approved State's mix design at no charge. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    November 12, 2019 —
    Europe’s biggest maker of cement plants is looking for help to clean up one of the world’s dirtiest industries. FLSmidth A/S, which is based in climate-friendly Denmark, wants to reduce emissions in cement production to zero by 2030. The company says it can achieve 70% of that target by leveraging existing technologies, for instance by blending clinker with alternative materials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nick Rigillo, Bloomberg

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    December 09, 2019 —
    Last year, we reported that the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (“Dynamex”) adopted a new, pro-employment standard (the “ABC Standard”), which presumes a worker is an employee versus an independent contractor under California wage orders and regulations. Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”) has now been passed by the California Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom. Bill AB5 codifies the ABC Standard and brings increased costs, administrative duties, and legal risks for hiring parties on multiple fronts, including, but not limited to:
    • Payroll taxes;
    • Meals, breaks and overtime policies and enforcement and premium pay;
    • Benefits;
    • Leave and PTO policies, requirements and enforcement;
    • Wage order violations;
    • Labor Code violations and Private Attorney General Actions (“PAGA”) claims;
    • Unemployment insurance; and
    • Workers’ compensation coverage, claims, and premiums.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald A. Velez, Smith Currie
    Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    August 24, 2020 —
    In Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contract Disruptions: Navigating Supply Constraints and Labor Shortages

    January 24, 2022 —
    The biggest worries in today’s economy—supply chain disruptions, labor shortages and the worst inflation in decades—are creating big headaches in the construction industry. What’s worse, large projects underway are often based on contracts hammered out pre-pandemic, before the uncertainties and disruptions that spread around the globe with COVID-19. Construction firms find themselves executing on contracts signed when the potential for delayed timelines and rising costs seemed more remote. A recent report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds almost all contractors (93%) say they are experiencing a shortage of an important product such as steel, lumber or copper. A rising number of companies on commercial projects (54%) also cite difficulty finding skilled workers. Grant Thornton clients, among them some of the country’s biggest construction companies, report that sourcing materials and hiring workers is a bigger challenge today—and more expensive—than at any other time in recent decades. Reprinted courtesy of Greg Ross and Tim Lynch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!

    August 03, 2022 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partner Anthony Garasi, Senior Associate Madeline Arcellana, and Associate Laura Rios successfully won a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), while also defeating two competing MSJs filed by Plaintiff, and ultimately obtaining a full dismissal of their landowner client against claims of premises liability. Plaintiff, who sued both BWB&O’s client (the landowner) and its tenant, alleged injury when he slipped and fell, while utilizing a temporary wooden board as a ramp that was placed on the subject property by the tenant, who was occupying the property subject to a lease-to-own arrangement with BWB&O’s client. In this Motion practice, the BWB&O team successfully obtained a ruling from the Court to find that BWB&O’s client had effectively contracted to delegate its maintenance responsibilities to its tenant, and also that the tenant owed BWB&O’s client full indemnity for Plaintiff’s alleged losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    September 03, 2014 —
    The collapse in U.S. home prices that stoked the worst recession since the Great Depression wasn’t quite as severe as initially estimated, according to data from S&P/Case-Shiller. Property values nationally fell 26 percent from the February 2007 peak to the December 2011 trough, not 34 percent as previously reported, revised data showed last week. The index will now be issued monthly rather than quarterly. The change is the result of CoreLogic Inc. (CLGX)’s $6 million purchase of the S&P/Case-Shiller index from technology company Fiserv Inc. in March 2013. Case-Shiller has spent more than a year retrofitting its model with CoreLogic’s bigger, higher-quality data set, leading to a change in how the index looks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lorraine Woellert, Bloomberg
    Ms. Woellert may be contacted at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    June 08, 2020 —
    On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of