BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Recording a Lis Pendens Is Crucial

    Contractors: A Lesson on Being Friendly

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

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

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

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

    Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    March 27, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to share that Downtown San Diego and Encinitas Managing Partner Vik Nagpal is nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence! Every year, West Coast Casualty recognizes an individual who is committed, trustworthy, and has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community. The award is named after the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver who is considered a “founding father” in the alternate resolution process in construction claims and litigation. Each year, members of the construction community are asked to nominate individuals who invoke the same spirit as Judge Oliver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    ASCE Statement on Biden Administration Permitting Action Plan

    May 23, 2022 —
    Washington, DC. – ASCE applauds the Biden Administration for the development of their new Permitting Action Plan aimed at accelerating the federal permitting and environmental review process for major infrastructure projects across the country. The plan leverages permitting provisions that were included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and aims to ensure that the federal environmental review and permitting processes will be efficient, transparent, guided by science, and shaped by meaningful input from the public and government agencies. One of the key recommendations in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure was to streamline the project permitting process across infrastructure sectors, while ensuring appropriate safeguards and protections are in place. Therefore, ASCE believes that the most recent plan is a step in the right direction to ensure that projects can be delivered on-time, and on-budget, while maintaining the rigorous environmental review process. 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

    Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

    February 01, 2022 —
    It happens: A contractor on a delayed project ends up in litigation over liquidated damages, but the key communications regarding delays and approvals were sent and received by the project manager on a mobile device using text messages and personal email accounts. Unfortunately, the project manager left the company a year ago on bad terms and has changed phones. The information that would serve to mitigate the contractor’s liability has disappeared. With better awareness and policies for capturing and managing electronic information, this is avoidable. Proactive and effective management of electronically stored information on construction projects can not only reduce costs and discovery disputes should litigation arise but can also provide critical evidence in reducing liability exposure in such disputes. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as most state rules, which often mirror federal rules), provide for sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation but is lost due to the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it. Even in arbitration, where discovery and disclosure obligations are often more limited than in the court setting, preservation of ESI can help strengthen claims and defenses, avoiding accusations of spoliation that can derail a case. Arbitrators can also fashion appropriate sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence, not to mention the impact that apparent spoliation can have on a party’s credibility. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Lang may be contacted at jennifer.lang@moyewhite.com Mr. Wennogle may be contacted at daniel.wennogle@moyewhite.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    July 22, 2019 —
    State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    February 06, 2019 —
    In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh

    December 03, 2024 —
    Over 500 construction law attorneys and consultants convened last week at the confluence of three rivers in what became the first-ever meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania of the ABA Forum on Construction Law. The Steel City was a fitting backdrop for a meeting focused on issues of design in construction. Thanks to the hard work of many, most notably the newly minted Forum Chair Keith Bergeron and Meeting Coordinators Kendall Woods and Michael Clark, the meeting's attendees brought home new connections and a host of new lessons learned. Read on for my top 10 take-aways from the 2024 Fall Meeting in Pittsburgh and feel free to share yours in the comments below. 10. An architect's standard of care does not require perfection. A common refrain across many of the meeting's plenary sessions was that any design that is produced by human hands will never be perfect. In recognition of our own fallibility, the legal standard to which design professionals will be held to account does not require that their designs be error-free. A design professional must generally exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals performing similar services under similar circumstances. Establishing what that means in each locality will vary and will most likely need to be supported by the expert opinion of another practicing design professional. 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

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    August 11, 2011 —

    The City of Seattle has one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation. Based upon the Washington State Energy Code (which has been embroiled in litigation over its high standards), the code demands a lot from commercial developers. But, does it prevent developers from saving Seattle?s classic and old buildings? Perhaps.

    The general compliance procedure requires buildings to be examined during the permitting process. This means that buildings are examined before they begin operating. The procedure is not malleable and is applicable to all buildings, old and new, big and small.

    The downside of this procedure is that it eliminates awarding compliance to those buildings exhibiting a number of passive features, such as siting, thermal mass, and renewable energy production. This problem has prevented a number of interesting and architecturally pleasing existing building retrofits from getting off the ground. The cost of complying with the current system can be 20% more, and it might prevent builders from preserving a building?s historical integrity.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    April 09, 2014 —
    In Arkansas, a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogated recovery is subject to a determination of whether the injured worker—or, as the case may be, the worker’s surviving beneficiaries—has been “made whole” by the worker’s recovery against the third party tortfeasor. See, e.g., Yancey v. B & B Supply, 213 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Ark. App. 2005) (“An insured’s right to be made whole takes precedence over an insurer’s right to subrogation, and an insured must be fully compensated before the insurer's right to subrogation arises.”) [1] More often than not, a “made whole” determination will completely eradicate the carrier’s lien. But under the right circumstances, a workers’ compensation carrier may be able to avoid the harsh outcome of “made whole” by intervening in a pending third party action and subsequently filing a motion for dépeçage—i.e., the conflict of laws principle requiring the court to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for discrete issues in a given case. A motion for dépeçage, in this sense, would demand that the court conduct a choice of law analysis to determine what state’s workers’ compensation subrogation law will apply on reimbursing a carrier’s lien. We recently exploited this often underutilized tactic—to avoid Arkansas’ made whole doctrine—in a case involving a fatal plane crash in Louisiana. In that case, the deceased worker and his beneficiaries were residents of Louisiana; the accident took place in Louisiana; the worker was officially employed in Louisiana; and the workers’ compensation insurance policy was governed by, and benefits were paid under, Louisiana law. The only “contact” with Arkansas [2], meanwhile, was that Arkansas was the defendant’s domicile. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com