BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    ASCE Releases First-of-its-Kind Sustainable Infrastructure Standard

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    What Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square Feet

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/11/23) – Construction Tech, Housing Market Confidence, and Decarbonization

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Precast Standards' Work Under Way as Brittle Fracture Warnings Aired

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/11/23) – Millennials Struggle Finding Homes, Additional CHIPS Act Funding Available, and the Supreme Court Takes up Hotel Lawsuit Case

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    Waive Your Claim Goodbye: Louisiana Court Holds That AIA Subrogation Waiver Did Not Violate Anti-Indemnification Statute and Applied to Subcontractors

    FEMA Offers Recovery Tips for California Wildfire Survivors

    Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims
    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

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders

    June 15, 2017 —

    The homebuilding and construction industries in California are at a record high in 2017 according to the National Homebuilders Association. While there is finally prosperity and growth for builders, developers and contractors after suffering from the recession of 2008, there is also a growth in construction defect claims. As with every industry and especially with construction, there are several risk prevention methods that can help curb this litigation.

    Time Frames for Pursuing Construction Defect Claims

    It is important to know and understand the time frames for which construction defect claims can be pursued by homeowners. There is a hard cut-off for construction defect litigation in California known as the Statute of Repose of 10 years. California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §337.15 provides a statute of repose that bars actions to recover damages for construction defects more than 10 years after substantial completion of the work of improvement. This provision is limited to property damage claims and does not extend to personal injuries (See, Geertz v. Ausonio, 4 Cal.App.4th 1363 (1992) and willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment claims. (See, Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp., 128 Cal.App. 4th 1278 (2005).

    There are also interim statutes of limitations for “patent” and “latent” defects discovered at the home also from the date of substantial completion. CCP §337.1(e) provides for a four year window to bring suit for deficiencies that are apparent by reasonable inspection (patent deficiencies). CCP §337.15(b) provides for deficiencies that are not apparent by reasonable inspection or hidden defects that require invasive testing to become apparent (latent deficiencies). A latent defect can become patent after it “manifests itself” (i.e. becomes observant – for example a roof leak) for which the four year window from the date of discovery would become the applicable statute of limitations.

    The discovery rule effectively acts to toll the statute of limitation period on construction defect claims until they become reasonably apparent. (See, Regents of the University of CA v.Harford Accident & Indemnity, Co., 21 Cal.3d 624, 630 (1978). This is similar to a breach of contract claim, also a four year statute of limitation. Finally, the California Right to Repair Statute (SB800) – Civil Code §§895, et seq. specifically Civil Code §896 sets forth the “Functionality Standards” or a list of actionable defect items, including items affecting the component’s “useful life” and a catch-all provision for all items not expressed listed as defects in the statute. (Civil Code §897). The majority of the defects alleged have a 10 year statute of limitations. However, there are shortened statute of limitations for the following items:

    Functionality StandardsStatute of Limitations
    Noise Transmission 1 year from original occupancy of adjacent unit
    Irrigation 1 year from close of escrow
    Landscaping Systems & Wood Posts (untreated) 2 years from close of escrow
    Electrical systems, pluming/sewer systems, steel fences (untreated), flatwork cracks 4 years from close of escrow
    Paint/Stains 5 years from close of escrow
    All other functionality standards (Civil Code §941(a)) 10 years after substantial completion(date of recordation of valid NOC)

    Preventative Measures to Curb Construction Defect Litigation

    Once the builder knows the time frames for construction defect claims, the following are some preventive measures to limit construction defect claims. As a reminder, homeowners are less likely to bring construction defect action if they feel that the builders are taking care of them.

    1. Communicate With Homeowners Prior to Claims

    It is imperative to communicate with the homeowners throughout the ten years statute of repose period. For example, most builders provide a limited warranty to the homeowners at the time of purchase. Homeowners are generally confused as to the length of the warranty and what the warranty covers. A practical tip to help curb construction defect claims is for the builder to send postcards or letters to the homeowners at the six month, one year and nine-year marks to advise the homeowner of: (1) the existence of the warranty and what is covered at each time frame; (2) the maintenance obligations of the homeowner at the various time frames; and (3) the fact that the home is approaching the ten-year mark. Most builders would rather deal directly with the homeowners through customer service than defend a construction defect litigation action where the costs to defend the claim will vastly exceed the cost to address the individual homeowner issues. The more the builder communicates with the homeowner in advance, the less likely it is that the homeowner engages in litigation against the builder.

    2. Timely Response to Homeowner Claims

    During the purchase process, provide the homeowners instructions on how to send in a customer service or warranty requests. Provide multiple methods for notification to the builder by the homeowner when issues arise in their home (fax, email, website forms, etc.). The builder should provide a timely response – within 48 hours of the notice if possible. The homeowner wants to receive some notification from the builder that they received their request and, at the very least, will investigate the claim. Even if it is determined to be a maintenance item or homeowner caused damage, the homeowner should receive: (1) an acknowledgement of the claim; (2) an investigation report of the issue; and (3) an action plan or conclusion statement – this can be a declination of repairs with an explanation as to the cause not being the result of original construction. Sometimes even sending a customer service representative to the home to listen to the homeowner claims and explaining that there are not repairs required is sufficient to satisfy the homeowner. The goal is to make sure the homeowner’s claims are acknowledged and that the builder is standing behind its product. In my experience, the fact that the builder failed to respond in a timely fashion to the homeowner is a significant motivating factor as to why the homeowner elected to enter formal litigation against the builder.

    3. Be Proactive When Litigation Ensues Despite the fact that the homeowner has engaged an attorney and joined a construction defect action, the builder is not precluded from continuing to communicate with its homeowners. Several builders send letters to the non-plaintiff homeowners reminding them to contact the builder should they have issues at their homes rather than join the ongoing construction defect action. Under the law, clients can always talk to clients even if they are represented by counsel. While the attorneys for the builders cannot speak to the represented construction defect homeowners, the builder can communicate directly with its homeowners offering to honor its warranty and customer service procedures in lieu of the homeowner proceeding with the litigation. Both of these builder attempts to communicate with homeowners post-litigation have a dual effect – some homeowners elect to contact the builder to effectupate repairs and drop the litigation; while others elect to continue with the litigation. So proceed cautiously in this regard.

    It is noted, there are many motivating factors for homeowners to bring a lawsuit against homebuilders that have nothing to do with the construction practices or customer service and are merely economically driven. However, these small steps in addition to providing solid construction practices should help curb construction defect litigation by homeowners.

    Jason Daniel Feld is a founding partner of Kahana & Feld LLP, an AV Preeminent boutique litigation firm in Orange County specializing in construction defect, insurance defense, employment and general business litigation matters. The firm was founded with the goal of providing high-quality legal services at fair and reasonable rates. The firm believes that what defines attorneys is not their billing rates, but their record of success, which speaks for itself. For more information, please visit: www.kahanafeld.com.

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

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    February 26, 2015 —
    Earlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects. The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty. “Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.” Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Retrospective As-Built Schedule Analysis Can Be Used to Support Delay

    May 23, 2022 —
    Delay claims are part of construction. There should be no surprise why. Time is money. A delay claim should be accompanied by expert opinions that bolster evidence that gets introduced. The party against whom the delay claim is made will also have an expert – a rebuttal expert. Not surprisingly, each of the experts will rely on a different critical path as to relates to the same project. The party claiming delay will rely on a critical path that shows the actions of the other party impacted their critical path and proximately caused the delay. This will be refuted by the opposing expert that will challenge the critical path and the actions claimed had no impact on the critical path (i.e., did not proximately cause the delay). Quintessential finger pointing! This was the situation in CTA I, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, CBCA 5826, 2022 WL 884710 (CBCA 2022), where the government terminated the contractor for convenience and the contractor claimed equitable adjustments for, among other things, delay. The contractor’s expert relied on an as-built critical path analysis by “retrospectively creating updates to insert between the contemporaneous updates.” Id., supra, n.3. The government’s expert did not do a retrospective as-built analysis and relied on only contemporaneous schedule updates. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    February 18, 2019 —
    In its recent decision in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company, 2019 WL 323702 (Wis. Jan. 25, 2019), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the issue of contribution rights as among co-insurers. Steadfast and Greenwich issued pollution liability policies to different entities that performed sewer-related services for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) at different times. MMSD sought coverage under both policies in connection with underlying claims involving pollution-related loss. Both insurers agreed that MMSD qualified as an additional insured under their respective policies, but Greenwich took the position that its coverage was excess over the coverage afforded under the Steadfast policy, at least for defense purposes, and that as such, it had no defense obligation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    December 23, 2023 —
    New York, N.Y. (December 7, 2023) - It has long been the rule in New York that a defendant should disclose all insurance policies that might provide coverage to the plaintiff for an underlying claim. McKiernan v Vaccaro, 168 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2019]; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589 [2d Dept 1994]. This rule applies to all tort cases, including motor vehicle; however, it does not apply to lawsuits seeking to recover No Fault expenses (see, CPLR 3101(f)(5)). Frequently, a plaintiff will demand a copy of the policy even when the claim is still pre-suit. This raises the question of when the insurer must comply with this specific type of discovery demand in New York. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    June 10, 2019 —
    The speed and quality of maintenance and repair are critical in the modern, technology-packed built environment. Consequently, these were considered in an experimental project that tested how remote expert assistance using VR and AR technologies could help improve the productivity of field service. I’m in a hall overlooking white mountain tops. It’s snowing. In front of me stands an avatar that explains to me what we can do together in this virtual space. He jumps away but I can still hear his voice from behind me. He fetches a chair and hands it to me. I grab it and inspect it. The next moment, a video starts playing on the wall. Later, my host shows me how to draw in three dimensions, how to make sticky notes, how to share a PC desktop, and how to use other collaboration tools. This experience took place at FAKE Production, a Helsinki-based digital image, animation, and VR/AR studio. With VR glasses and hand-held controllers, I had tried out Glue, their universal collaboration platform. This is a soon-to-be-released service that you can use with VR/AR gear and on mobile and desktop devices. Glue is also one of the solutions tested in an experimental project called Expert assistance using VR and AR glasses. In this project, Sovelto, a Finnish educational company, wanted to explore the possibilities of using VR and AR solutions for field service. Over ten organizations took part in the project, which received funding from KIRA-digi, the national built environment digitalization program. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    October 21, 2015 —
    A new blog post from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton discusses two recent decisions limiting the holding of Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979), a New Jersey case that has generated decades of commentary and debate, in my own writing as well as that of many others (at least 1880 citations, according to the blog). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    June 20, 2022 —
    New York, N.Y. (June 3, 2022) - The New York Senate and Assembly recently passed Bill S74A, also known as the Grieving Families Act, and it is expected that Governor Hochul will likely sign the bill into law. If passed, the law would significantly expand the damages available in wrongful death actions in a number of ways. First, Section 1 would amend EPTL section 5-4.1 to extend the statute of limitations to commence a wrongful death action from two years to three years and six months, a significant increase that will permit many more wrongful death cases to go forward. Second, Section 2 amends EPTL section 5-4.3, to allow recovery for emotional damages if a tortfeasor is found liable for causing a death. The current law only allows recovery of economic damages, such as economic hardship caused by a loss of parental guidance. The old law did not permit recovery of damages for grief, sympathy, and loss of companionship or consortium (see, e.g., Liff v. Schildkrout, 49 N.Y.2d 622 (1980); Bumpurs v. New York City Hous. Auth., 139 A.D.2d 438, 439 (1st Dept. 1988)), but that would change with passage of the new bill. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com