BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultant
    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


    Coping With The New Cap And Trade Law

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    Florida Condo Collapse Victims Reach $1 Billion Settlement

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

    Court Finds that Subcontractor Lacks Standing to Appeal Summary Judgment Order Simply Because Subcontractor “Might” Lose at Trial Due to Order

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

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

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Hirers Must Affirmatively Exercise Retained Control to be Liable Under Hooker Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

    Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes

    Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies

    Elon Musk’s Proposed Vegas Strip Transit System Advanced by City Council Vote

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects
    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

    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

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

    June 21, 2024 —
    The San Diego office has recently added two attorneys to the team. Amanda McKechnie has joined the Construction Law Practice Group. Amanda has extensive experience representing national developers, owners, general contractors, design professionals and subcontractors in complex construction litigation. Arash Yahyai has joined the Construction Law and General Liability Practice Groups. Arash focuses on defending actions involving complex construction defect, insurance defense, premises liability, product liability, catastrophic personal injury and other general liability related cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    February 04, 2013 —
    KXNT Las Vegas's Trevor Smith reports that Las Vegas alone has more than 500 pending construction defect cases. The issue of construction defects in Nevada will be taken up by the Nevada Legislature. Smith spoke with Mike Dillon, the executive director of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada. BANN is supporting legislation that Dillon says will "protect homeowners and secondly it's going to put people back to work." Dillon noted that "construction is the second largest industry in the state." Dillon attributed some of the construction defect litigation to the state's building codes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    February 19, 2019 —
    In a recent case in Kentucky[1], a sub-tier subcontractor sued the general contractor and owner for failure to pay for extra work. At the trial, the court held the subcontractor was entitled to recover under the theories of implied contracts and unjust enrichment, even though the subcontract contained a “pay-if-paid” clause. All parties appealed. In particular, the general contractor asserted that the pay-if-paid provision in the subcontract precluded recovery by the subcontractor. The issue was petitioned to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was whether a pay-if-paid provision was enforceable as between a general contractor and subcontractor, and if so, whether the subcontractor could nevertheless pursue the owner directly for payment notwithstanding a lack of privity between the owner and subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    October 10, 2013 —
    On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9. The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.” The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
    Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    July 31, 2013 —
    A West Virginia couple has sued the manufacturer of their home for construction defects and damage. Darrell and Teri Pearson claim that the home they purchased from Giles Industries was defective. They further claim that Kitchen’s Construction failed to set the home up properly and that the firm did not repair damaged sections of home. The suit also names the firm that sold the home and others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    April 04, 2011 —

    Many owners incorrectly believe that payment to the general contractor gets the owner off the hook for payment to subcontractors and suppliers. This assumption sometimes fosters the irresponsible owner, who fails to ensure that everyone is getting paid. Fortunately for those contractors further down the contracting chain, this assumption is incorrect.

    Suppliers and subcontractors can file a lien to secure payment for their labor and materials. A filing party must offer proper notice (if applicable) and file an adequate and timely lien in the County where the work is performed. You can read our earlier posts on these topics by following this link.

    A lien notice and a lien put an owner on notice that your business has provided labor and/or materials for the improvement of the owner’s property (See RCW 60.04.031 for more info). If the owner fails to take care to ensure that your business is paid the law mandates that the owner may have to pay twice.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

    October 03, 2022 —
    Wilke Fleury is extremely proud of its incredibly talented attorneys! Congratulations to Steve Williamson, Dan Egan, Neal Lutterman, Danny Foster, George Guthrie, Mike Polis, Ron Lamb, and David Frenznick, who are all featured in this year’s Sacramento Magazine’s List of Top Lawyers 2022! Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of