BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Where Do We Go From Here?

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Award Recipients

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Safe and Safer

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

    Cumulative Impact Claims and Definition by Certain Boards

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

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

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Perovskite: The Super Solar Cells
    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. Leveraging 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 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

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    April 28, 2016 —
    California’s Business and Professions Code requires contractors to be licensed by the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). The CSLB issues licenses in 44 different classifications which are separated into three categories: “A” licenses are for general engineering contractors, “B” licenses are for general building contractors, and “C” licenses are specialty licenses that cover everything from installing boilers to installing ornamental metal. Performing construction work without a license or without the requisite license is a misdemeanor and can lead to the imposition of fines and in certain instances, jail time. (California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7028(a).) While potential imprisonment is unlikely, contractors are frequently fined, or prohibited from filing suit to collect money for their work. Perhaps most onerous, a contractor who is unlicensed, or working with a suspended license or the wrong license, can be forced to return all of the money it was paid for its work. (See our alert:Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    December 13, 2022 —
    Highland, Ind. (November 21, 2022) - Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer was recently named "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (DTCI). She was officially recognized at a Board & Officers dinner the evening before the DTCI's annual conference, which took place in Michigan City, Indianapolis from November 17 to 18.  The DTCI gives out three awards every year as part of its annual conference, including "Defense Lawyer of the Year," "Diplomat," and "Outstanding Young Lawyer." This year, two recipients received the "Diplomat" recognition "I am honored to receive this recognition from my peers and look forward to continuing my work with the DTCI," said Ms. Mortimer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Renee Mortimer, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Mortimer may be contacted at Renee.Mortimer@lewisbrisbois.com

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    March 01, 2012 —

    Comparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.

    The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”

    The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”

    The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”

    While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    December 04, 2013 —
    William and Prudence Dziatkowicz have sued Vince Bruno Construction, LLC over a house they contracted to have built in Weirton, West Virginia. According to the Dziatkowiczes, they contracted with Mr. Bruno and his self-named company to build a house, for which they would pay $248,250. The couple claims that Vince Bruno construction never completed work on the house, eventually abandoning the project. Further, they allege that the work done is defective, including improper installation of floor beams, and a failure to properly protect the project from weather. Additionally, the couple contends that the contractor failed to pay a lumber company, leading to a lawsuit against the Dziatkowiczes and a lien on their house. The Dziatkowiczes are suing Vince Bruno Construction for more than $355,000 in damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

    June 26, 2014 —
    Dorian Bishopp blames the solar panels on his roof for costing him almost 10 percent off the value of the home he sold in March. That’s because instead of owning them he leased the panels from SunPower Corp. (SPWR), requiring the new owner of the house to assume a contract with almost 19 years remaining. He had to shave the asking price for the house in Maricopa, Arizona, to draw in buyers unfamiliar with the financing arrangement. Leasing is driving a boom in solar sales because most require no money upfront for systems that cost thousands of dollars. That’s made solar affordable for more people, helping spur a 38 percent jump in U.S. residential installations in the past year. Since the business model only gained currency in the past two years, the details embedded in the fine print of the deals are only starting to emerge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Bloomberg
    Mr. Wade may be contacted at wwade4@bloomberg.net

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    February 23, 2016 —
    In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

    February 18, 2015 —
    Returning from an Oregon vacation this past Summer along I-5, I found frequent reminders of the extraordinary drought conditions prevailing across California. A grey smoky gloom blanketed the California-Oregon border from Ashland to Weed from at least five wildfires. The prediction of rains in the north state was more curse than blessing as lightning threatened to touch off tender-dry fuel in the forests and start more fires. Farmers tilling fields produced massive dust clouds. And under the I-5 bridge along the Sacramento River arm of Lake Shasta, the lake had receded to the original streambed. On NOAA’s Palmer Drought Severity Index, nearly all of California is listed as in a condition of extreme or severe drought, and the Governor has issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency requiring water conservation measures affecting all California residents. Indeed, early August news reports indicate that hopes of relief from an El Nĩno year are waning. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation No. 2014 issued July 15 mandates action to reduce water use and require larger water suppliers to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until April 25, 2015 unless extended due to ongoing drought conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen McKae, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. McKae may be contacted at smckae@wendel.com