BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut consulting engineersFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut eifs expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    National Infrastructure Leaders Visit Dallas' Able Pump Station to Tout Benefits of Water Infrastructure Investment

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Nuclear Energy Gets a Much-Needed Boost

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    Start-up to Streamline Large-Scale Energy Renovation

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

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

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Be a Good Neighbor: Techniques to Mitigate the Risk of Claims from Adjacent Landowners

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct

    Storm Debby Is Deadly — Because It’s Slow

    Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask

    First-Time Buyers Home Sales Stagnates

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    20 Years of BHA at West Coast Casualty's CD Seminar: Chronicling BHA's Innovative Exhibits

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    What is a Personal Injury?

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute
    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

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    October 29, 2014 —
    In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

    Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    September 21, 2020 —
    Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire. As discussed in Steamfitters Local, a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found hundreds of cigarette butts in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and the defendants appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    August 30, 2021 —
    When it comes to resolving construction disputes it’s a bit like the “31 Flavors” of Baskin Robins. There’s a flavor for nearly everyone. From mediation, to arbitration, to litigation, to dispute resolution boards (DRBs), to the architect as the “initial decision maker” under AIA contracts, parties and their counsel have developed numerous ways to resolve disputes on construction projects, including by expert review. But if you’re going to agree to a dispute resolution procedure, make sure it’s one you can live with, because if you don’t, it’s often going to be too late to go back to the proverbial drawing board as the parties in the next case discovered. The Coral Farms Case In December 2010, a mudslide impacted three properties in San Juan Capistrano, California. One of the properties was owned by Coral Farms, L.P., another by Paul and Susan Mikos, and the third by Thomas and Sonya Mahony. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Congratulations to Partner Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Nevada!

    July 02, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Las Vegas Partner Madeline Arcellana was once again selected by Nevada Business Magazine as a Top Rank Attorney in Nevada for her work in Civil Litigation, General Liability, and Personal Injury! Nevada Business Magazine‘s Top Rank Attorneys list is comprised of attorneys in both private and public practice who are voted for by nearly 3,000 Nevada-licensed attorneys. The attorneys on this list are at the top of their field and each nomination is put through an extensive verification process. To view Nevada’s 2024 Top Rank Attorneys, please click here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    August 19, 2015 —
    This summer the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued proposed changes to the white-collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white collar exemptions include the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employee exemptions. The focus of the proposed regulations is to increase the salary level required to qualify for the exemption from $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. The DOL predicts this will cause employers to change the exempt status of nearly 5 million workers who are currently exempt from overtime requirements to non-exempt status – requiring the payment of overtime. Current Regulations Under today’s regulations, the white collar exemption applies to employees who are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) and who customarily and regularly perform any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee. Proposed Changes The most significant change is the sizeable increase in the minimum salary requirements for the exemptions. The proposed regulations more than double the current minimum salary of $455 per week to $921. This corresponds to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings projected for the first quarter of 2016, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The DOL also proposes annual adjustments to the minimum salary requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Anatomy of a Data Center

    October 28, 2024 —
    Traditional and social media are thick with reports and predictions of the remarkable increase in size, power consumption and significance of data centers. Not only technology companies but real estate and energy developers, investment funds, lenders, and professionals of all stripes are in or determined to enter this sector. Our inboxes are full—it’s data center this, data center that. But what exactly is a data center? What infrastructure, technology and human resources come together to create and sustain one of these localized points of computation? By understanding their components, we can glean some understanding of the business, public policy and (our focus) legal issues that arise before and during their operation. In this article, we cite key characteristics of a reference Blackacre Data Center, with occasional glances at other (real) structures that offer variations on themes. Blackacre is a composite of several centers we have encountered in our law practice. These facilities differ widely in size, location and functions, so your mileage will vary. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    August 30, 2021 —
    Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

    October 29, 2014 —
    The state of Mississippi “is suing architects and designers of a new Public Health Lab, saying the $28 million lab wasn't up to containing deadly diseases, biohazards and chemicals,” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Dale Partners Architects, Earl Walls Associates, Eldridge and Associates, and Environmental Management Plus have been named as defendants. "The estimated damages are $3 million," attorney Dorsey Carson told The Clarion-Ledger. "This building is where they test tuberculosis, or where they would test anthrax or any other (biohazards). You don't have a choice – it has to meet rigorous standards." Charlie Alexander, a partner with Dale Partners, stated that “any allegations of design defects by his company and its team ‘are unfounded,’” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of