BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut ada design 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


    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Think Before you Execute that Release – the Language in the Release Matters!

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

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

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In

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

    Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”
    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

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    February 04, 2013 —
    The California Homebuilding Foundation has inducted six industry leaders into their Homebuilding Hall of Fame, in recognition of both their professional accomplishments and their philanthropic and volunteer activities. The six homebuilders to be honored are Sherman S. Haggerty of Lennar Corp., Joe Head of the SummerHill Land Division of SummerHill Homes, Robert B. MacLeod of Newland Real Estate Group, John J. Ryan Jr. of Brookfield Homes Bay Area, Tom Sudberry of Sudberry Properties, and Bill Watt of Baywood Development Group. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters

    August 22, 2023 —
    From deadly wildfires to floods, the US is reeling from several natural disasters in quick succession — and more are likely on the way. Torrential rains from the remnants of Hurricane Hilary are inundating parts of California. Two tropical storms, one post-tropical cyclone and two potential storms are lined up in the Atlantic Ocean. Almost 100 wildfires are burning across 15 states as officials in Hawaii investigate the deadliest US blaze in more than a century. And record heat will test Midwest power grids this week. All of this, all at once, is a lot — and it’s not just bad luck. Climate change has triggered heat waves around the world, leading to ideal fire conditions in forests across the Northwest and Canada. It’s also boosting Atlantic water temperatures, which can intensify storms as the peak of hurricane season approaches. And unusually warm Pacific Ocean waters fueled Hilary, which in turn will contribute to scorching heat in the Midwest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    August 26, 2019 —
    On June 26, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain in a slip and fall accident filed in Osceola County Circuit Court in Kissimmee, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water allegedly existing in the hotel’s laundry room and suffered a partial thickness rotator cuff tear involving the distal infraspinatus tendon for which he underwent surgery and incurred over $70,000 in medical bills. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the hotel claiming the hotel had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition proximately causing the Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries. After discovery closed, Mr. Guldalian filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the hotel arguing that to prevail in a negligence claim involving a “transitory foreign substance”, such as water on a floor, an injured party must plead and prove pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755 that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it prior to the time of the alleged fall. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that (1) the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition or (2) that the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable that the condition would be present on the day the injury occurred. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    March 19, 2015 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a jury “convicted four defendants charged in the massive scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations.” Convicted defendants included former Benzer attorney Keith Gregory, Benzer’s half-sister Edith Gillespie, Salvatore Ruvolo, and David Ball. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Prosecutors contended the multimillion-dollar scheme was carried out between 2003 and 2009 by former construction company boss Leon Benzer and the late construction defects lawyer Nancy Quon. Benzer has since pleaded guilty. Quon committed suicide in 2012 under the weight of the high-profile investigation.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    August 30, 2017 —
    Two members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group were recognized recently. Garret Murai was selected for inclusion in the 2017 list of Northern California Super Lawyers and Matthew Graham was selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2018 edition. Garret Is co-chair of the firm’s Construction Practice Group and Matt is a 30+ year veteran of construction law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    May 03, 2021 —
    Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi and associate Catherine Asuncion who were selected to the 2021 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Reprinted courtesy of Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

    March 23, 2020 —
    The following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences. Force Majeure Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause. Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure. The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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