BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge

    Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

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

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

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

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

    The Black Woman Architect Who Hopes to Change the Face of Design in America

    The Housing Market Is Softening, But Home Depot and Lowe's Are Crushing It

    Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    Rental Assistance Program: Good News for Tenants and Possibly Landlords

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    What I Learned at My First NAWIC National Conference

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    Construction Defects Checklist

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)
    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

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    March 01, 2012 —

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.

    Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.

    The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”

    Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”

    The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”

    Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”

    The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.

    Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.

    Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”

    The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    May 24, 2011 —

    Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

    Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

    “Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

    In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

    December 04, 2018 —
    In 2015, the California state legislature passed AB 219, which amended the state’s prevailing wage law to add Labor Code section 1720.9, which requires the payment of prevailing wages to “ready-mixed concrete” drivers on state and local public works projects. Ready-mixed concrete suppliers filed suit in Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker (September 20, 2018) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the law on the ground that, because AB 219 singled out ready-mixed concrete drivers but not other drivers of materials on state and local public works projects, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    May 13, 2014 —
    At this week's West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, for every hole-in-one made at the golf putting game at the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth, the firm will make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). Each winner will also receive a $25.00 Best Buy gift card. BHA’s traditional golf game has been technologically reimagined. As the putter steps onto the artificial turf, he or she is plunged into a virtual golf course through an animated video projected on a giant 23 feet wide by 8 feet tall screen! While at the booth, don’t forget to test out BHA’s industry leading data collection and inspection analysis systems. BHA has recently added video overviews to their data collection process, as well as next-day viewing of inspection data via their secured BHA Client Access Portal. Discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility. Attendees can also enter to win Dodger baseball tickets, a new iPad Air, or a trip to the Del Mar Race Track! Other BHA giveaways include water bottles, pocket tape measures, multi-tools, flashlight fans, foam footballs, and Godiva chocolates. Bert L. Howe & Associates strongly supports the goals and principles of the CDCCF, and is honored to assist the foundation in fulfilling its mandate of assisting those in the construction defect community who are in need. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    May 07, 2014 —
    New York Mayor Bill de Blasio presented plans to build and preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing in the next decade by increasing rent protections for the poor and requiring developers to include below-market apartments in newly zoned areas. The $41.1 billion program, paid for with city, state, federal and private funds, would focus 60 percent on preservation and 40 percent on new construction. About $8.2 billion of the cost would be borne by the city, according to a 116-page report detailing the plan, which de Blasio called the “largest, fastest” affordable-housing program ever attempted at the local level. De Blasio, 52, a self-described progressive and the city’s first Democratic mayor in 20 years, took office in January after describing income inequality as the most serious issue facing the most populous U.S. city. He turned his attention to housing today after pushing the state legislature in March to grant the city $300 million to institute universal all-day pre-kindergarten. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    March 05, 2015 —
    Sydneysiders wanting to sell their homes have never had it easier. The proportion of successful house auctions in Australia's largest city was above 80% at the weekend for the fourth week in a row. That is the longest stretch on record and highlights the potential consequences of a projected interest-rate cut. Governor Glenn Stevens's effort to revive business investment with cheap finance is adding fuel to the country's biggest property market. Home sellers may get a further boost, with 18 of 29 economists forecasting a 25-basis-point cash rate reduction on Tuesday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Heath, Bloomberg

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    August 21, 2023 —
    Kim Ritchie, Vice President, Canada, ISN Construction Executive Q&A What risks do wildfires and poor air quality pose to workers? Exposure to smoke caused by wildfires can have significant health risks, especially for those with preexisting medical conditions. Smoke exposure and poor air quality can trigger immediate effects such as coughing, difficulty breathing and irritation of the throat, eyes and lungs. However, despite smoke dissipating, it could have long-term health complications with cardiovascular impacts, such as heart attacks and stroke. With the lasting impacts caused by exposure to wildfire smoke and poor air quality, it's essential for organizations to look out for their workers’ long-term health. Reprinted courtesy of Kim Ritchie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    December 10, 2015 —
    Two Miami condominium associations have filed suit “concerning defective fire sprinkler systems and a national cover up over a significant life safety issue in multi-unit condominiums in Florida and across the country.” The attorneys representing the class action lawsuit, Gonzalez, Montoya, Siegfried, Sobel, and Hale, “believe that the problem is nationwide and that monetary damages arising from the claims will exceed $1 billion,” a press release by Colson Hicks Eidson stated. “The 56-count lawsuit filed against a dozen manufacturers, suppliers and distributors seeks compensatory, incidental and consequential damages.” According to CBS Miami, “The suit claims the companies knowingly used [a] chemical that caused cracks and leaks in pipes that affected the water pressure in sprinkler systems.” Plaintiff attorneys claim that the cost to repair each building is estimated at between $50 to $100 million each. Read the full story, Press Release... Read the full story, CBS Miami... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of