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


    Select the Best Contract Model to Mitigate Risk and Achieve Energy Project Success

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

    Foreign Entry into the United States Construction, Infrastructure and PPP Markets

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

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

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay

    Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    Pallonji Mistry, Indian Billionaire Caught in Tata Feud, Dies at 93

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    What If There Is a Design Error?

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named for Top-Tier Practice Areas in 2018 U.S. News – Best Law Firms List
    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

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    March 12, 2015 —
    According to Columbus Business First, a report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that “assessed the structural integrity of the Buckeye Lake Dam [located in Ohio] and found serious problems that present significant risks to the public.” Problems arose, allegedly, from “construction of homes [and] pools and patios that have been built into the earthen embankment.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report stated (according to Columbus Business First) “there was a potential for an eight-foot wave of water, mud and debris that would inundate an area as far as Hebron, more than two miles away.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    February 07, 2018 —
    In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)

    February 16, 2016 —
    Be careful with how you act with arbitration clauses in your contracts. If you are not careful in how you act to enforce these clauses, you could find yourself stuck in court whether you like it or not. As I stated in a recent update to a post last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the issue of a contractor’s waiver of its rights to arbitration under a contract. Briefly, the facts of Forrester v. Penn Lyon Homes, et. al., No. 07-2171 are as follows. The Forrester’s sued Penn Lyon and its warranty company alleging among other things a breach of express warranty based upon a warranty contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause. Instead of immediately alleging an affirmative defense based upon the arbitration clause, the defendants removed the case to federal court and litigated for 18 months before raising the arbitration defense for the first time. The 4th Circuit (correctly in my opinion) affirmed the lower court and held that the defendants defaulted their right to arbitration because of their actions in defense of the court action and the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by those actions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The Heat Is On

    June 13, 2022 —
    Every year, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) team up to assess global temperatures and climate trends. (Yes, that NASA. A big part of the space agency’s mission is focused on Earth science, with the goal of better understanding the planet’s interconnected systems.) The two groups released their findings for 2021 this past January, with several predictably alarming highlights:
    • 2021 was the sixth-warmest year on record, with the average global surface temperature about 1.5°F over the 20th-century baseline periods that the agencies use for comparison and nearly 2°F higher than in the late-19th century.
    • The surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was also the sixth-highest on record, at nearly 2°F over baseline, with the land temperature exceeding the baseline by 2.8°F.
    • Extreme climate events included an above-average Atlantic hurricane season, with 21 storms, and a severe heat wave in the northwestern United States and western Canada in June during which Canada recorded its highest temperature ever, at 121°F.
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Durso, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    February 25, 2014 —
    This year will be the twenty-first anniversary of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar, which brings together industry professionals locally as well as internationally. Early registration begins in the evening of Wednesday, May 14th, while the main events take place on May 15th and 16th at the Disneyland Hotel and Resort. For attendees who wish to explore more of southern California before or after the seminar, you can show your badge and save at many venues including the Warner Bros. VIP Studio Tour, Medieval Times, Pinot Provence, Crossroads at House of Blues, Morton’s Steakhouse, as well as many other establishments. You may register for the seminar online. They are offering a $50 discount to attendees who register before April 15th. Download an invitation or register for the event... Show Your Badge and Save... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    December 13, 2022 —
    One of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows: The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    December 11, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach attorneys John Toohey and Sammy Daboussi obtained a complete defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their concrete contractor client. This lawsuit arises from a claim made by Plaintiff for construction defects in a high-end single-family home. Our client was hired to perform concrete work on the foundations of the home. It was alleged that the home’s foundation was incorrectly built. It was further alleged that the construction defects/errors led to delays and substantial expenses. We argued that our client relied on the certifications provided to them by design professionals and the City. We further argued that our client, like any reasonable concrete/foundation subcontractor, has no responsibility or obligation, contractual or otherwise, to review and recheck the work completed by a licensed professional. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    September 24, 2013 —
    A Florida couple who sought more than $10 million in damages in a construction defect suit, has received a jury verdict of only $79,000. Leo and Kathryn Vecellio bought the 25,000 square-foot home in 2008, after which they discovered water intrusion issues. They sued both the builder and couple from whom they had bought the house. Although the Vecellios spent more than $11 million to repair their home, the jury concluded that the builder did not know about the construction defects. The jury did determine that the builder, Dan E. Swanson, did either lie about or conceal certain facts about the construction. He was ordered to pay the $79,000 in damages to the Vecellios. Lawyers for the defendants argued that the leaks were not from the original construction of the home, but were instead caused by the renovations made by the Vecellios. The Vecellios are pursuing whether they are entitled to money from home warranties. “There will be more evidence to be considered. I’m determined to see this through,” said Leo Vecellio. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of