• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

    Four Common Construction Contracts

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

    Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York
    Corporate Profile


    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    February 05, 2015 —
    On January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko Mr. Martin may be contacted at; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    December 10, 2015 —
    Currently in Florida, the ten year clock for construction defect claims typically starts ticking after the final payment is made by the owner. However, WFSU reported, Representative Keith Perry wants to change it so that the completion of the construction triggers the statute of repose. This change “could favor the construction industry, by shifting the power to start the clock from home owners to builders,” WFSU claimed. Representative Dwight Dudley worries about “what would happen if a contractor felt she was finished but the property owner didn’t agree.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    December 10, 2015 —
    Denver, Dallas, and Houston’s housing markets are rising too quickly and will soon hit “’bubble territory’” according to a housing market index by Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University, reported the Denver Business Journal. "There is about a 70 percent chance that renters in Denver will get more wealth on average than buyers," Ken Johnson, a real estate economist at the university in Boca Raton, Florida, told the Denver Post. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    July 30, 2018 —
    Wendel Rosen Construction Practice Group Co-Chairs, Garret Murai and Quinlan Tom, have been selected for inclusion as 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers in the area of Construction Litigation. Murai and Tom are among 26 other attorneys at the firm who were selected as either 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers or Rising Stars by Thompson Reuters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    March 05, 2011 —

    In American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Development Co., Inc., No. S10G0521 (Ga. March 7, 2011), insured plumbing subcontractor Whisnant was sued by general contractor Hathaway seeking damages for costs incurred by Hathaway in repairing damage to property other than Whisnant’s plumbing work resulting from Whisnant’s negligently performed plumbing work on three separate projects. On one project, Whisnant installed a pipe smaller

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    December 21, 2016 —
    As we count down the remaining days of 2016 (thank God) it’s time to think about what the new year will bring (I’m good with pretty much anything at this point). The economists at Dodge Data & Analytics have a few predictions. According to their 2017 Dodge Construction Outlook, they predict that U.S. construction starts will increase modestly in 2017, up 5% to $713 billion, after rather anemic growth in 2016 following several years of steady growth. According to Robert Murray, chief economist for Dodge Data & Analytics, while the first half of 2016 lagged behind construction activity in 2015, that shortfall grew smaller as the year progressed, easing concern that the construction industry might be in the early stage of a cyclical decline. Rather, according to Murray, it appears that the construction industry has now entered a more mature phase of expansion, one characterized by slower rates of growth than during the 2012-2015 period and that construction spending can be expected to see moderate gains through 2017 and beyond[.] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    May 27, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at 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 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of