BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expert
    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


    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    Congratulations to Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser for Being Recognized as 2022 Super Lawyers!

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

    Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?

    John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    On to Year Thirteen for Blog

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    MTA Debarment Update

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Being the Bearer of Bad News (Sounding the Alarm on Construction Issues Early and Often) (Law Note)

    Angels Among Us

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    Five Frequently Overlooked Points of Construction Contracts

    U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

    FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors
    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 Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

    July 05, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling recently won their Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of a prominent Bay Area Grocery Store, and long-time client of the firm. BWB&O’s Client is a regional Grocery Store with locations throughout California and Nevada. The Client was sued in an action pertaining to a claimed dangerous condition of public property, resulting in a vehicle versus pedestrian collision in an intersection, adjacent to a Northern California store of BWB&O’s Client. The Plaintiff asserted our Client allowed the use of the store’s parking lot as a pickup and drop-off location by agricultural laborers, resulting in increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic, which the surrounding streets were not capable of accommodating thereby creating an allegedly dangerous condition. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    July 01, 2011 —

    Texas-based Godfather Construction is a recipient of a fraud suit from the Cook County state attorney’s office. The firm incorporated in Illinois in April 2010, moving there to do business after storms damaged homes in the Chicago suburbs, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. The state attorney alleges that Godfather brought unlicensed out-of-state workers and the work they performed was “incomplete or shoddy.” Godfather is claimed to have received about $60,000 from Illinois homeowners. The prosecutors are seeking restitution for Godfather’s clients and seek to forbid the firm from doing business in Illinois.

    Read the full story…

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

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    January 19, 2017 —
    Sometimes you come across a head scratcher. This would be a decision that does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For instance, if you are sued and you maintain liability insurance that would potentially provide you a defense and indemnification, not notifying your insurance carrier is a head scratcher. You pay substantial dollars towards the premium of that policy. So, not then notifying your carrier about a lawsuit is a head scratcher, and I mean a head scratcher!! If you are sued, not only should the carrier be notified, but the defense of that lawsuit should be tendered to your liability carrier. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

    January 16, 2024 —
    Cleveland, Ohio (January 2, 2024) - In a landmark 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on December 28 that wrongful death claims are subject to the four-year statute of repose contained in O.R.C. 2305.113(C) (“Medical Claim Statute of Repose”). Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, Slip No. 2023-Ohio-4670. Statutes of repose create an absolute bar to filing a lawsuit. When applicable, they bar plaintiffs from filing claims outside a specified time frame. The Medical Claim Statute of Repose creates a four-year window for commencing medical claims, which begins to run from “the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical…claim.” O.R.C. 2305.113(C)(1). Medical claims commenced after the four-year period are barred. The primary question before the Court was whether a wrongful death claim, which is separate and distinct from a medical negligence claim, can qualify as a “medical claim” within the context of the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. The Court answered in the affirmative. A wrongful death claim can qualify as a medical claim if the wrongful death claim “…arises out the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment, of any person.” O.R.C. 2305.113(E)(3). According to the majority, a wrongful death claim can fall within the broad definition of “medical claim” and, if it does, is subject to the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    March 19, 2015 —
    Remodeling explained how the new high-tech home gadgets can be vulnerable to “digital or actual break-ins” without the right security in place. Though it isn’t clear how often home hacking is occurring. "I haven't heard of any major hackers breaking into many houses at one time, and the likelihood that someone will try to break into your house by unlocking your door instead of smashing the window is probably low," Tim McInerney, director of product marketing for Savant told Remodeling. "But as devices get more popular and clear winners start to emerge, you may see more and more of those kinds of attacks. When there's a million of one type of connected thermostat out there, that creates more chances for hackers to test the connections and catch someone off-guard." Remodeling includes tips on making your home more secure, including changing the default device password, creating multiple networks, and consider hard-coding the hardware address. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    January 20, 2020 —
    We are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:
    1. PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
    2. CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
    3. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

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

    October 17, 2022 —
    Power and energy projects are inherently complex and risky. Therefore, management and proper allocation of risk among project participants are essential to success. Careful drafting of the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract is a critical first step in managing risk. The standard contract format used for power and energy construction projects is the EPC contract. In its traditional form, the EPC contract makes the EPC contractor responsible for the entire project, including engineering (design of the power plant), procurement (purchase, installation and performance of all equipment) and construction (construction of the plant). EPC contracts can, however, employ different contract models and pricing structures, each of which carries differing levels of risk for project participants. Selecting the appropriate contract model and pricing structure to meet the unique needs of the project is important. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Seador, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Seader may be contacted at seador@slslaw.com

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    January 05, 2017 —
    One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com