BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims 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


    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    GRSM Team Wins Summary Judgment in Million-Dollar HOA Dispute

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Thank You for Seven Years of Election to Super Lawyers

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    New Proposed Regulations Expand CFIUS Jurisdiction Regarding Real Estate

    Be Mindful Accepting Payment When Amounts Owed Are In Dispute

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    PulteGroup Fires Exec Accused of Defamation By Founder’s Heir

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Too Costly to Be Fair: Texas Appellate Court Finds the Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Unenforceable

    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Mental Health and Wellbeing in Construction: Impacts to Jobsite Safety

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

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

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    August 28, 2023 —
    The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
    Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    February 23, 2017 —
    The single word to describe the sports infrastructure created for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games is abandonment. Uncertainty over the future of the dilapidated sports stadiums and arenas threatens the legacy of the Olympics, which ended five months ago. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Augusto Diniz, O Empreiteiro, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    June 10, 2019 —
    Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce the Public Law Center (PLC) has named Orange County partner Sean M. Sherlock as the 2019 Volunteers for Justice Attorney of the Year. Sherlock donates his time and knowledge to his community through his pro bono work with PLC. From 2015 to earlier this year he headed a team of attorneys who represented an elderly PLC client in danger of losing her mobile home. The client is the primary caregiver for her disabled grandson who survives solely on a fixed income of disability and Social Security, causing her to fall behind on her space rent for her mobile home. In addition to pro bono work, Sherlock is an avid community volunteer, spending his time supporting organizations that have included Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Orange County Coastkeeper, AYSO and the Boy Scouts of America. “One of the most rewarding aspects of being an attorney is being able to obtain justice for the vulnerable and defenseless in our society who would otherwise be unable to navigate our legal system,” said Sherlock. “My relationship with the PLC has given me many opportunities to do some very gratifying work, and it is a real pleasure working with and learning from the excellent staff attorneys at PLC.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!

    October 09, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte has been elected to the Orange County Bar Associations (“OCBA”) slate of four open Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning January 2024, alongside Casey Johnson (Aitken Aitken Cohn LLP), William O’Neill (Ross, Wolcott, Teinert & Prout LLP), and Lesley Young (Orange County District Attorney’s Office). “It is one of the greatest honors of my career to have been elected to the OCBA board of directors. Thank you to all those who supported me; I will work tirelessly as your representative to serve our bar and community. I am especially excited to work alongside President Elect Christina Zabat-Fran and the other esteemed members of the board. I look forward to applying my skills and knowledge to serve our legal community as we work to promote excellence, integrity and honor in our profession, and to improve the practice for all.” – Nicole Whyte Nicole is honored to have the opportunity to continue her support with the OC legal community. For over two decades, she has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards. Nicole currently serves on the board of OCBA Master’s Division and is the 2023 Board President of the Public Law Center, the largest pro-bono law firm in Orange County. She is also a current board member of the Sonenshine Pro Bono Committee. Nicole is a founding fellow of the OC Bar Foundation and served as secretary for the Robert Banyard Inn of Court for eight years. Nicole plans to call upon her experience serving on various boards, and her many years of law practice and management experience, to help identify and support the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    December 13, 2021 —
    Construction work is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, accounting for 19% of all workplace deaths in 2019. In New York City, that number is almost 50% higher, with construction accidents accounting for a quarter of all workplace deaths. One of the most positive developments in this area, despite the presence of COVID-19, has been the recent implementation of the “Zero Tolerance” campaign by the New York City’s Department of Buildings. The goal of the DOB’s latest construction safety campaign was to reduce the number of building site injuries and fatalities by implementing a zero-tolerance standard. While it is too premature to measure the program’s efficiency, a preliminary analysis of the first three months’ results appear to be nothing short of impressive. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Flynn, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Flynn may be contacted at nf@plattalaw.com

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    May 13, 2014 —
    A fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund. In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions. Reprinted courtesy of Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    July 09, 2014 —
    Today, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies. In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories. The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed. Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury. Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association. Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
    Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    February 12, 2024 —
    Project delays have long plagued the construction industry, with risk often identified as the primary culprit. However, finding effective solutions to mitigate risk on complex projects has remained daunting. Traditional methods for simulating risk primarily focus on extending project timelines, overlooking the diverse range of opportunities available for risk mitigation. With the construction industry’s digital transformation, generative methodologies have emerged to handle complex decision-making in uncertain situations. This article aims to shed light on the limitations of existing risk modeling and introduce a novel approach known as generative risk mitigation to enhance decision-making under deep uncertainty. According to McKinsey, 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns exceeding 30%. Project delays have become so pervasive that the industry has grown accustomed to them. For example, in 2022, the UK government issued ‘The Green Book,’ which requires contingency funds in projects, such as a 44% contingency budget for standard civil projects. This implies that for a $100 million project, you should allocate $144 million to manage expected risks. There is no denying significant academic literature on the root cause of these delays: it is ‘risk,’ and there is an entire industry based on it. Conversations with project directors and risk experts reveal the same issue, different project. And that issue is that we cannot easily forecast risk, qualify the impacts or fully understand the opportunities that exist to mitigate risks and make timely decisions. A method that will finally help us overcome this has emerged within the industry. Reprinted courtesy of Georgia Stillwell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of