BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction 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


    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Calling the Shots

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Construction Costs Up

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Additional Insured in Construction Defect Case

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Do We Need Blockchain in Construction?

    "My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    Kahana Feld Partner Noelle Natoli Named President of Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles

    Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Supreme Court’s New York Harbor Case Isn’t a ‘Sopranos’ Episode

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Unfair Risk Allocation on Design-Build Projects

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits
    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

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    April 17, 2019 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    February 26, 2016 —
    Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, a premier business and real estate law firm in California and Nevada, is pleased to announce the promotion of three of its attorneys to partnership. “Clay Tanaka, Eric Rollins, and Jonathan King have proven their ability to provide the highest quality legal services to our clients while embracing the core values of the Firm which make it unique,” said Jeff Dennis, managing partner of Newmeyer & Dillion. “We are proud to welcome them as our new partners.” The new partners share extensive legal and trial experience, demonstrating quick and creative solutions for their clients. Newport Beach Clayton Tanaka Clay Tanaka is an experienced trial lawyer practicing in both California and Nevada, focusing on construction, real estate, business, insurance disputes and appellate law. As a licensed civil engineer in California, Clay has extensive knowledge of construction practices as well as vast experience in the designs of both residential subdivisions and commercial developments. He has represented developers and general contractors in numerous complex real estate and construction matters through trial, including disputes involving grading, design, boundary and easement disputes, water intrusion and insurance coverage issues. Clay has also represented a variety of businesses in actions involving breach of contract, fraud, and copyright and trademark infringements. He is also fluent in Japanese. Eric Rollins Eric Rollins’ practice focuses on the litigation and arbitration covering a broad range of business, real estate, construction, insurance, and land use disputes. Within the construction arena, he regularly handles complex construction matters and insurance coverage issues arising out of construction claims for both residential and commercial builders. In his business and land practice, Eric has litigated a variety of claims in state and federal courts involving breach of contract, negligence, unfair business practices, fraud, business formation, eminent domain, and inverse condemnation. He has experience with all phases of business litigation, including arbitration, mediation, and trial preparation. Walnut Creek Jonathan King Jonathan King’s practice focuses on the representation of developers, builders, and general contractors in construction litigation and has extensive experience defending personal injury allegations in industrial and construction settings. His business cases include litigation of intellectual property infringement, and general business litigation. Jonathan has successfully resolved and defended complex matters in both mediation and binding arbitration settings. Jonathan also obtains federal trademark protection and negotiates licensing agreements for clients. About Newmeyer & Dillion LLP For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

    December 20, 2021 —
    Senate Bill No. 727, Imposing Liability on Contractors for Wage Claims of Subcontractor Employees: California Senate Bill 727 was approved by the Governor on September 27, 2021. The new Act amended Labor Code Section 218.7 and added a new section 218.8 to the Labor Code. Both Labor Code sections impose on “direct contractors” in the construction industry (defined by Civil Code 8018 as “a contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner”) liability for the wage violations of their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors at any tier when working on California private construction projects. Specifically, new Section 218.8 expands the liability of direct contractors for wage claims of the employees of subordinate subcontractors on projects for contracts executed beginning on January 1, 2022. The liability of the direct contractor under Labor Code 218.8 will include “any debt owed to a wage claimant or third party on the wage claimant’s behalf, incurred by a subcontractor at any tier acting under, by, or for the direct contractor.” Specifically included as listed liabilities of the direct contractor are: “any unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, penalties or liquidated damages, and interest owed by the subcontractor on account of the performance of the labor.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    December 10, 2015 —
    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved subsidies to help expedite the construction of lower Manhattan’s 2 World Trade Center, where Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox Inc. and News Corp. companies have a tentative deal to move their headquarters from midtown. Developer Silverstein Properties Inc., which leases the sites for 2 World Trade Center and two other towers from the Port Authority, would receive a rent break that amounts to $9 million over the life of the lease, Authority Director Patrick Foye said, just before the agency board unanimously approved the proposal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    October 22, 2014 —
    Secret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product. The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office. The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick G. Lee, Bloomberg
    Mr. Lee may be contacted at plee315@bloomberg.net

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    October 24, 2023 —
    Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.

    About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.

    A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.

    In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.

    Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.

    Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”

    Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.

    Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.

    The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    January 04, 2023 —
    Bluestone Coke, a 100-year old Birmingham. Ala. factory that produces a key component in steelmaking and is partially owned by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, must pay nearly $1 million under a Dec. 9 state consent decree for violating federal clean air rules by releasing toxic emissions from coke ovens. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of