BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield 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


    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Thank You for 17 Years of Legal Elite in Construction Law

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

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

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires

    Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

    99-Year-Old Transmission Tower Seen as Possible Cause of Devastating Calif. Wildfire

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!
    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

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    April 15, 2014 —
    On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    December 30, 2015 —
    Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger discussed Right to Repair developments occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado in their article, “Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s ‘Right to Repair Statutes.” Read the full story... Texas also had changes that affected construction defect claims, as covered by David H. Fisk of Coleman & Logan PC: “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code. This is in addition to compliance with the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA) and any preconditions included in the condominium association’s declarations.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    November 13, 2013 —
    The streets around the Omni Building in Lubbock, Texas have been barricaded for an indefinite period, since the marble panels have been falling off the building. The panels weight about 300 pounds each. The building’s owners attempted to remedy the problem by replacing the marble with stucco, but that too came loose in the wind and fell to the ground. The city issued a stop work order preventing the installation of any more stucco. The city “told them that all needed to come down, both the old and the new,” according to Steve O’Neil, the city’s chief building official. The city has filed a lawsuit to compel the owners to fix the building. Glen Robertson, Lubbock’s mayor, sees another possible solution, “or demolish it because, as it stands right now, it is truly a health and safety hazard to our citizens. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    June 10, 2024 —
    In the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered. While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying. In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
    Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    January 31, 2018 —
    Ah yes, retainage, what could represent your profit on a project and something frequently abused by owners on private and public projects alike. Fortunately, Pennsylvania law offers public works contractors some protection from retainage abuse. The Public Prompt Payment Act dictates when retainage can be withheld and when it must be released. Agencies that fail to follow the Prompt Payment Act’s retainage rules can end up owing you interest, penalty, and attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    July 27, 2020 —
    When Covid-19 took hold in several US states in early spring, Choate Construction responded, as many contractors did, by quickly adopting federal workplace safety guidelines for disinfecting surfaces and maintaining social distancing. Enhanced by various state lockdown measures for businesses and the general public, the new safety system seemed to work with only a handful of workers on Choate’s projects testing positive. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record reporters Richard Korman, Scott Judy and Jeff Rubenstone Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    July 21, 2018 —
    In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk. Cost Risk School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com