BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Urban Retrofits, Tall Buildings, and Sustainability

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    Implications for Industry as Supreme Court Curbs EPA's Authority

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    Consumer Prices Rising as U.S. Housing Stabilizes: Economy

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

    Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says

    Around the State

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    $48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    Autovol’s Affordable Housing Project with Robotic Automation

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    May 19, 2014 —
    Elevators break down, ceilings leak and security is lax at the Metro North apartments overlooking the East River in Harlem, says retired rehabilitation technician Bob Montesi, who’s lived there for more than three decades. Even as deterioration accelerates at the 761-unit complex, which used to be in a state affordable-housing program, some tenants are facing rent increases of as much as 80 percent. For Montesi, 74, who worked at a New York City-run hospital for 41 years, the changes are especially galling. One of the owners of the building is his pension fund. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Martin Z. Braun, Bloomberg
    Mr. Braun may be contacted at mbraun6@bloomberg.net

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    March 14, 2018 —
    On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    November 03, 2016 —
    It’s official: the October 20, 2016 deadline to petition for certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals on its decision in Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Bradbury has passed, so it appears that decision will stand. In Sierra Pacific, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression that the statute of repose for a general contractor to sue a subcontractor begins to run when a subcontractor’s scope of work is substantially complete, regardless of the status of the overall project. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ¶ 28, ___ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute of repose in C.R.S. section 13-80-104, which requires that “all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of any improvement to real property” must be brought within six years of substantial completion of that improvement. C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(a). Recognizing that “an improvement may be [to] a discrete component of an entire project” under Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc., 296 P.3d 145 (Colo. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals determined that “a subcontractor has substantially completed its role in the improvement at issue when it finishes working on the improvement.” Sierra Pac., 2016 COA at ¶¶ 20, 28. In doing so, it rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that the statute could be tolled under the repair doctrine “while others worked to repair [the subcontractor’s] ‘improper installation work and flawed repair work.’” Id. at ¶ 29. Because six years had undisputedly passed since the subcontractor completed its scope of work when Sierra Pacific filed suit against it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment under Section 13-80-104(1)(a). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    July 18, 2011 —

    Coverage of the ongoing litigation concerning the Harmon Hotel continues to proliferate. Architectural Record and a number of other news outlets continue to provide additional details and coverage of the matter. Chief among the conditions alleged are improperly installed reinforcing steel inside link beams on 15 floors. MGM Claims that the conditions amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, while Perini (the builder) indicated in a July 12th statement that the buildings problems are related to the design, and the they are “fixable.”

    There is significant speculation that MGM Resorts International isn’t interested in repairing the hotel due to a glut of hotel rooms attendant to the troubled economy. In a statement Tuesday Perini reportedly stated that “Repairing and opening the Harmon would only create a greater glut of unused hotel rooms for MGM,” “If market conditions were better and MGM found that demand existed for the Harmon hotel rooms, MGM would not be claiming that the Harmon is unstable.”

    MGM asserts that Perini failed to ”properly construct” the project. Clark County’s Department of Development Services has reportedly asked MGM to provide a plan to fix the project by August 15th.

    The Harmon is part of the $8.5 billion CityCenter project that opened in the fourth quarter of 2009 and is jointly owned by MGM Resorts and Dubai World.

    Prior reports indicated that the owner (MGM) had considered razing the entire project. The future of the project remains uncertain.

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

    Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

    April 11, 2022 —
    (April 4, 2022) - Beginning July 1, 2022, Illinois trial courts will begin imposing new time standards for closing out pending cases. This change follows the Illinois Supreme Court’s March 25, 2022 announcement setting new time standards for case closure in trial courts. This announcement will apply to all cases filed in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2022. According to the recent announcement, the purpose of the new Time Standards Order (the Order) is to assist Illinois circuit courts with “meeting their fundamental obligation to resolve disputes fully, fairly, and promptly” by establishing a uniform, statewide expectation for parties, attorneys, and judges regarding the status of cases that will require each court to evaluate its actual performance compared to a statewide expectation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Shelton, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Shelton may be contacted at Zachary.Shelton@lewisbrisbois.com

    Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears

    December 21, 2020 —
    Wildfires have always been a part of life in the western United States, but, in recent years, the frequency and size of wildfires have become staggering. Oregon, Washington, and—in particular—California face drier conditions, making wildfire season longer and more intense. In these states, among others, prescribed burns (designed to reduce wildfire ignition sources and spreading potential) have been limited or cancelled altogether as the air pollution emitted by these burns may worsen the impact of COVID-19, a respiratory illness in its essence, as noted recently by Science magazine. These circumstances, further compounded by the severe shortage of housing, have created a “perfect storm” in California, which has seen new and denser construction deeper within wildfire-prone areas, prompting a number of key legislative proposals that will impact the rebuilding process after the smoke clears. The infamous 2018 Camp Fire in northern California made international headlines for decimating the town of Paradise. While the cause of the Camp Fire was determined to be faulty electrical transmission equipment, unusually dry conditions allowed the fire to spread to just over 150,000 acres, and the fire took 17 days to contain. Then, five of the 20 largest wildfires in California history occurred during the 2020 wildfire season, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). The Camp Fire was eclipsed by the August 2020 Complex Fire, which is the largest wildfire ever recorded in the state, growing to just over one million acres in size until it was finally contained on Nov. 15. Legislative Response The Camp Fire and other 2018 wildfires displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes throughout California. The unprecedented scale of both the 2018 and the 2020 wildfire seasons in California has spurred legislators in Sacramento to draft a number of important bills that will undoubtedly impact rebuilding efforts. California AB 38 was prompted by the 2018 California wildfire season and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2019. It requires the state fire marshal, the Office of Emergency Services, and Cal Fire to work together to develop and administer a comprehensive wildfire mitigation program, including "cost-effective structure hardening and retrofitting to create fire-resistant homes, businesses, and public buildings." Unfortunately, the well-intentioned program has yet to be funded, and may be relying on federal hazard funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a future date. In light of the crippling economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal funding is likely the only viable source for this important item of legislation. California SB 182 would enact new building regulations in high fire-risk areas (as determined by the state fire marshal), including new standards for fire-resistive construction, evacuation routes, defensible space, and available water and firefighting resources. It would also prohibit municipalities from approving new construction in high fire-risk areas unless wildfire reduction standards are satisfied. In effect, the bill would discourage new construction in high fire-risk areas. After passing through both legislative houses, Newsom vetoed the bill, citing its negative impact on the state's strained supply of affordable housing. However, the bill is likely to be revisited in the 2020-2021 legislative session. California AB 1516 is a comprehensive bill that would:
    • Create new defensible-space requirements for both new and existing construction in high fire-risk areas.
    • Create a grant-assistance program for fire-prevention education, inspections, and technical assistance.
    • Direct Cal Fire to develop vegetation management recommendations to minimize flammability.
    Additionally, the bill would allow insurers providing course of construction coverage for a project to request, from the owner, municipal certification that the structure to be built complies with existing and new building standards. Newsom vetoed this bill, cautioning that a "one size fits all" approach to wildfire management may not be appropriate, given that each individual community's needs differ. California AB 2380 focuses on the development of standards and regulations for a relatively new and growing phenomenon: the rising use of private firefighting personnel, particularly by wealthy homeowners. Several prominent and well-known carriers offer homeowners-insurance policies that provide for private firefighting personnel, as well as preventative services (wildfire hazard inspections and clearing defensible space), and expected post-incident services (clean up and removal of fire retardant and similar substances). AB 2380 was signed into law by Newsom at the tail end of the 2018 wildfire season, and it now requires Cal Fire, the governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the board of directors of the FIRESCOPE Program (designed to coordinate firefighting resources among different agencies) to develop standards and regulations for privately contracted fire fighters. Housing Shortage and New Construction These legislative efforts are underscored by the worsening housing crisis, which has both strained existing supply and increasingly pushed new construction into areas known as the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). WUI areas are designated as either "interface" or "intermix:” Interface WUI areas have little to no wildland vegetation, but are near large wildlands. By contrast, in intermix WUI areas, structures are mixed with wildland vegetation. A recent study by the U.S. Forest Service found that, as expected, WUI areas are the hardest hit by wildfires. However, the study also found that, contrary to popular belief, wildfires cause greater damage in interface WUI areas than intermix WUI areas- in other words, wildfire damage is greatest where there is little to no wildland vegetation. The study concludes that wildfires in WUI areas are fueled more by human-made fuels as opposed to natural vegetation. These human-made fuels include building materials and landscaping. It may not come as a surprise that a growing body of scientific literature has ascribed more severe and frequent wildfires to climate change. However, what may be less appreciated is the profound impact of building in the WUI. By 2050, an estimated one million new homes are projected to be built in California WUI areas. In light of this, as well as the recognition that wildfire risk is determined, in large part, by construction standards and the fire resistivity of materials as opposed to natural vegetation, California has developed a special building code for WUI areas: Chapter 7A of the California Building Code- Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure. California is one of the few states to have a unique building code for WUI areas, and, in light of the recent wildfires, California officials are developing stricter WUI building standards. The constituents of State Sen. Bill Dodd in Napa County and surrounding areas have faced some of the state's most devastating wildfires. Dodd is at the forefront of significant fire-related legislation, and was responsible for the passage of the Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019, which sets regulations for insurance-claim adjusting in emergencies. Dodd also spearheaded the passage of SB 190, which was enacted in late 2019. The law requires, among other things, the state fire marshal to develop suitable materials and products for building in WUI areas with respect to exterior wall siding and sheathing, exterior windows, doors and skylights, vents, decking, treated lumber and ignition-resistant materials, and roofing materials. The state fire marshal's office found that roofing material is among the most important factors in a structure's fire resistivity, and slate, metal, and tile roofs have the highest fire resistance rating of "A:” As of July 1, 2021, wood-shake roofs will no longer be allowed by the California Fire Code. The state fire marshal also cites non-combustible siding as an important building element. Wildfire-Resistant Construction A recent study prepared by Headwaters Economics and commissioned by the U.S. Forest Service, WR Foundation, and Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety analyzed cost differentials between traditional construction and wildfire-resistive construction as they relate to the four most fire-critical assemblies of a structure: roofs, exterior walls (including windows and doors), decks, and landscaping. Wildfire-resistant roofing, vents, fascia, and gutters were estimated to cost about 27 percent more than traditional components. However, the wildfire-resistant roofing materials feature lower maintenance requirements and longer lifespans. Wildfire-resistant exterior walls were estimated to cost 25 percent less than traditional components, due in large part to the substitution of true wood siding with fiber cement siding. Wildfire-resistant decking involves the use of composite boards, foil-faced bitumen tape on support joists, and the creation of non-combustible space beneath decking. This type of construction was estimated to cost approximately 19 percent more than traditional decking construction. Wildfire-resistant landscaping has the most significant cost difference as compared to traditional landscaping construction, with the former costing about double the latter. Landscaping fabric can minimize the growth of weeds and thus reduce fire hazard, as does the use of rocks instead of mulch. While certain components of fire-resistant construction may have increased costs, the benefits far outweigh these increases: longer life cycles and less maintenance of the components, and, most importantly, greatly increased fire resistivity of the structure itself and thus its life cycle. As construction in WUI areas is expected to grow substantially in the coming years, so too are fire-resistive construction standards and material requirements. These standards and requirements are part and parcel of a more comprehensive and deliberate set of land use planning, vegetation management, and emergency-response regulations and policies that California will develop by necessity to meet the growing demand for housing in WUI areas, and also to rein in the staggering costs of wildfire suppression. Thus, construction in WUI areas, and, to a lesser degree, in non WUI areas, will be subject to more exacting standards in the years to come. As the science of wildfire prevention and suppression advances, so too will the technological innovations that will allow for safer, longer-lasting and ecologically sensitive construction. As in many other fields, California is expected to emerge as a leader in wildfire resistant building and material requirements, and will undoubtedly play a key role in shaping fire policy throughout the United States. Richard Glucksman is a partner, and Ravi Mehta is senior counsel, at Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb. rglucksman@cgdrlaw.com; rmehta@cgdrlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Home Construction Booming in Texas

    October 24, 2022 —

    With the rapid relocation trends of families moving to Texas, it was reported that new residential construction permits in Texas grew to a total value in excess of $2 billion and over 7,500 new construction permits in September 2022 alone. D.R. Horton lead the way with 1,139 new permits, while Lennar Homes clocked 696 new permits. Other leading homebuilders including KB Homes (239 permits) and Pulte Homes (253 permits) remained active heading into the 4th Quarter of 2022. The following is a breakdown of new permits and average home values in the 4 largest cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) for September 2022:

    Houston

    Last month, there were approximately 340 home builders with new permits on record in the Houston area, and the following ranked as the top five total new permits:

    BuilderTotal PermitsAverage Value
    1-D.R. Horton 483 $ 129,812.00
    2-Camillo Properties 190 $ 147,790.00
    3-Lennar Homes 188 $ 195,503.00
    4-Meritage Homes 124 $ 248,597.00
    5-Wan Pacific Real Estate Development 117 $ 165,044.00

    Dallas

    In Dallas, there were more than 290 contractors with new residential construction activity on record with HBW last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:

    BuilderTotal PermitsAverage Value
    1-D.R. Horton 555 $ 179,430.00
    2-Lennar Homes 232 $ 202,318.00
    3-Trophy Signature Homes 111 $ 274,016.00
    4-Bloomfield Homes 97 $ 405,235.00
    5-Meritage Homes 92 $ 267,425.00

     Austin

    Last month, there were nearly 125 home builders with new construction activity on record in the Austin area, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits for the one-month period:

    BuilderTotal PermitsAverage Value
    1-Lennar Homes 150 $ 154,390.00
    2-KB Homes 147 $ 253,606.00
    3-D.R. Horton 99 $ 200,416.00
    4-Taylor Morrison Homes 79 $ 365,183.00
    5-David Weekley Homes 64 $ 436,978.00

     San Antonio

    In San Antonio, there were nearly 120 contractors with new residential construction activity on record last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:

    BuilderTotal PermitsAverage Value
    1-Lennar Homes 126 $ 174,315.00
    2-KB Homes 55 $ 254,109.00
    3-Pulte Homes 52 $ 241,012.00
    4-M/I Homes 51 $ 237,283.00
    5-LGI Homes 30 $ 202,760.00

    The residential construction boom is Texas does not appear to be slowing down anytime soon. With new corporations relocating corporate offices to the Lone Star State each year, we expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future. And with increased home production, we will closely monitor the increase in construction related litigation over the next five to ten years.

    The increase in market activity attracts new or inexperienced builders and tradesman, making the importance of a proactive approach to construction management all the more important. Given the labor shortages and supply chain issues. It is imperative that Texas homebuilders take extra precautions to ensure quality construction practices and oversight to minimize potential litigation.

    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and Ron Raydon, Kahana Feld

    Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com

    Mr. Raydon may be contacted at rraydon@kahanafeld.com

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

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    February 25, 2014 —
    According to The Oregonian, the Morrison Bridge in Multnomah county, Oregon will be closed Sunday, February 23rd “so county crews can inspect the decking that has caused problems since it was installed” in 2012. The “southernmost eastbound lane has been closed for weeks while crews conducted inspections.” The defects appeared “almost immediately after the project” was completed, reported The Oregonian. Drivers have “dealt with a bumpy, noisy ride as the loose decking panels flopped beneath them.” Multnomah county has sued “Conway Construction, the company the installed the decking, as well as Strongwell Corp., the company that supplied Conway with the decking materials, and Zellcomp, the company that made the decking materials, to determine who should foot the bill for extensive repairs or outright replacement of the decking.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of