BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry

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

    If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    Contractors: A Lesson on Being Friendly

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Point Taken: The UK Supreme Court Finally Confirms the General Law of Liquidated Damages (LDs)

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey

    Arizona Is the No. 1 Merit Shop Construction State, According to ABC’s 2020 Scorecard

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Recognized in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: One’s to Watch” 2024 Editions

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?
    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

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    May 24, 2011 —

    In January, the California Court of Appeals ruled that an arbitration clause inserted in a development’s CC&Rs by the developer could not be enforced. The case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Noble Court Development, involved a case in which, according to the opinion, “following the first sale Nobel controlled the board of directors of the Association and because the initial condominium buyers noticed defects in common areas and common facilities and did not believe Nobel had provided a reserve fund sufficient to repair the defects, the condominium owners brought a derivative action on behalf of the Association against Nobel.”

    The court concluded, “The use of CC&R's as a means of providing contractual rights to parties with no interest in or responsibility for a common interest development is also problematic from the standpoint of determining what if any consideration would support such third-party agreements. By their terms the CC&R's bind all successors, even those with whom a third party such as Nobel has never had any contractual relationship and to whom Nobel has not provided any consideration.” The court determined that “the trial court did not err in denying Nobel's motion to compel arbitration.”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    September 09, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Vik Nagpal, John O’Meara, Sheila Stiles, Patrick Au, and Nicole Schmidt have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 31st edition of The Best Lawyers in America, and Partner Devin Gifford, and Associates Melissa Youngpeter, Ryan Flanagan, and Alexandria Zeis are included in the fifth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America. Each person is being recognized for their diligent work in the areas of Family Law, Construction, Commercial, Personal Injury, and Real Estate Litigation. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    March 14, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Houston Cas. Co. v. Cavan Corp. of NY, Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t Feb. 20, 2018), a New York appellate court had occasion to consider the application of a construction management exclusion in a general liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

    GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions

    August 12, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON — The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is advancing progress toward the Biden-Harris Administration's federal sustainability goals by releasing updated standards for federal buildings. P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service establish mandatory design and construction standards and performance criteria for 300,000 federal buildings nationwide. The updated standards will help advance the adoption of cleaner, more efficient technologies for buildings; lead the way towards realizing the goals of the Federal Sustainability Plan to achieve net-zero emissions from all federal buildings by 2045; and promote the use of American-made, low carbon construction materials. P100 requires that facilities adopt advanced energy conservation strategies and eliminate on-site fossil fuel use, directives that align with federal sustainability goals and will accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. The industry-leading standard calls for grid-interactive efficient buildings, leverages innovative technologies through GSA's Green Proving Ground, requires the use of low-embodied carbon materials, and directs potable water reuse. These comprehensive measures ensure that new and renovated federal facilities achieve peak performance while minimizing environmental impact. The 2024 P100 establishes exceptional benchmarks for:
    • Electrification: New standards for building equipment and systems to be powered by clean energy sources.
    • Embodied Carbon: Requirement to utilize low-embodied carbon materials, including salvaged, reused, regenerative, and biomimetic options.
    • Energy Efficiency: Enhanced building envelope performance to minimize energy loss and improve overall efficiency.
    • Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: New measures to support a more resilient, responsive grid.
    • Water Reuse: Mandating that buildings have a 15% potable water reuse rate.
    • Construction Decarbonization: Ground breaking new low-carbon methods for constructing federal buildings including clean energy operations, material salvage, and offsite assemblage.
    • Labor Practices: New standards protecting workers from unfair or unsafe labor practices, ensuring supply chains are free from child and forced labor and that workers are protected from the impacts of extreme heat.
    P100 is updated and published every three years. For more detailed information on the 2024 P100 and other GSA initiatives, visit www.gsa.gov/p100. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    August 20, 2019 —
    The court approved the insurer's endorsement which stated the insured would not pay for undamaged property in order to match damaged property. Noonan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (May 24, 2019). After hail and wind damaged part of the roof in the insureds' home, American Family inspected the roof and determined that it had suffered $12,000 in damage. The insureds disputed this amount and demanded an appraisal to provide a binding estimate of the amount of loss. American Family asked the appraisers to divide their estimate into two categories - one for replacing damaged shingles and another for replacing undamaged shingles that would not match those needed to replace the damaged ones. The appraisers did not do so. They instead found that replacing the entire roof would cost $141,000 and noted there was a matching issue because alternative products did not match the current shingles on the roof. Of the $141,000 needed to replace the entire roof, American Family estimated that $87,232.98 was due to the costs of matching. The insureds sued. The district court remanded the case to the appraisers to clarify the award by differentiating the costs attributable to the actual roof damage from those attributable to shingle matching. The appraisers clarified the award and reported that actual damages were $66,619, meaning that $74,381 was attributable to matching. American Family then paid the actual damages, less the deductible, but refused to pay the rest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    December 30, 2015 —
    In the above mentioned case, a Texas architectural firm (HKS Architects, Inc.) hired a California design firm (Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc.) as a sub-consultant, according to Garret Murai of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP in a post on his California Construction Law Blog. After Vita filed a complaint in California against HKS, HKS filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the landscape design contract included a “Texas forum selection clause.” The court found in favor of Vita, stating that “section 410.42 precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause requiring Vita to litigate its dispute against HKS in Texas.” Read the full story... In their article, “Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of ‘Contractor’ for Forum Selection Clauses,” Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Abigail E. Lighthart and David A. Harris also analyzed the Vita case: “The Vita ruling expands the protections by Section 410.42 beyond traditional ‘builders’ to design professionals and architects who do not actually ‘build’ a project. What remains to be seen is whether other courts will take the expansion to cover other groups that are in any way involved in a construction project.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    April 15, 2024 —
    This post takes a look at the enforceability of contract provisions providing for liquidated delay damages after substantial completion. Typically, the assessment of liquidated delay damages ends at substantial completion of a project. However, various standard form contracts, including some of the ConsensusDocs and EJCDC contracts, contain elections allowing for the parties to agree on the use of liquidated damages for failing to achieve substantial completion, final completion, or project milestones. The standard language in the AIA A201 leaves it up to the parties to define the circumstances under which liquidated damages will be awarded. Courts are split on the enforceability of provisions that seek to assess liquidated damages beyond substantial completions. Courts in some jurisdictions will not impose liquidated damages after the date of substantial completion on the ground that liquidated damages would otherwise become a penalty if assessed after the owner has put the project to its intended use. Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 610 A.2d 364 (1992). When the terms are clear, other jurisdictions will enforce contract terms providing for liquidated damages until final completion, even if the owner has taken beneficial use of the facility. Carrothers Const. Co. v. City of S. Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743, 207 P.3d 231 (2009). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
    Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    August 11, 2011 —

    The Seattle Times reports that a transit construction project has uncovered about twenty-five gravestones. The area was historically sensitive, as it is in territory once occupied by the Puyallup Tribe. At current report, no human remains have been found and the article cites the project?s archeological consultant as describing the gravestones as “not historically significant.”

    Read the full story…

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