• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut building code compliance expert witnessFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope failure 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

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

    No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications
    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

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    December 11, 2013 —
    Officials claimed the failure of a bridge in Afton Township, Illinois was because trucks owned by Welded Construction used the bridge despite exceeding the bridge’s weight limit of 36.5 tons. The firm argued that they should be responsible for the depreciated cost of the bridge, not its replacement cost. Welded Construction had been using the bridge to get to the site of an oil pipeline construction project for Enbridge Energy. Replacement of the bridge was initially estimated at $933,000, but that was in advance of any design work. Enbridge Energy settled the case at $900,000, which should cover most or all of the cost of repair or replacement. Some federal funds may also be available for repairing or constructing a new bridge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    October 28, 2011 —

    The MetroWest Daily News reports that a demolition firm was told to leave the construction site at Natick High School since their failure to have workers compensation insurance makes them unable to work on the project. The contractor, Atlantic Dismantling and Site Construction, Inc. may have been working illegally since September.

    The equipment that Atlantic had rented for the job was repossessed in August. Brait Builders Corp, the general contractor for the site had rented equipment so Atlantic could continue their work.

    Their lack of insurance was discovered when a worker had a minor job-related injury. The state had issued a stop-work order for the firm and they could not legally bid on public projects. The school system did not receive any notice of this, and the school’s facilities director said of the general contractor, “chances are Brait never heard of anything either.”

    Read the full story...

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

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    November 07, 2012 —
    CityCenter has filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to intervene in Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez’ order that the building’s defects cannot be extrapolated from those tested. CityCenter’s structural engineering expert “evaluated 397 of the Harmon’s critical structural elements and found all but one defective,” according to the article on Vegas.Inc. Judge Gonzalez would not permit this to be extrapolated to the untested 1,072, as the locations tested were not random. Judge Gonzalez also ruled that if CityCenter does additional testing, they may not appeal her order that ruled the extrapolation inadmissible. CityCenter argued to the Nevada Supreme Court that “the notion that CityCenter should be forced to incur additional millions of dollars in testing costs and sanctions – on the condition that it waive its right to appeal this ruling – just to be permitted to present its own damages evidence, shocks the conscience.” Gonzalez gave the okay to CityCenter to demolish the building, but its demolition would make any further testing impossible. Under Gonzalez’ ruling, the untested structural elements cannot b assumed to be defective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 —

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    August 07, 2018 —
    Broadly speaking, all lawsuits can be put into one of two categories: criminal or civil. Criminal cases are brought by the government against a private person and/or organization for committing an act that is considered harmful to society as a whole; whereas civil cases involve private disputes between individuals and/or organizations. Civil litigation begins when one person or organization claims that another person or organization has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the claimant. Legal duties are those prescribed either by contract between the parties, or by the law. In order for a claimant to commence legal action against another party, the claimant must file a summons and complaint with the court and serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the party against whom the lawsuit is being brought. The person who brings the lawsuit is called the “Plaintiff” and the person against whom the lawsuit is brought is called the “Defendant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    May 20, 2015 —
    Apple released its much anticipated Apple Watch this past month. The Apple Watch is significant for Apple, not only because its profit and loss statement has a lot riding on it, but because it’s the company’s first foray into consumer “wearables.” This isn’t the first time the Cupertino company has ventured into new areas, through. Since its first consumer product, the Apple I, was released in 1976, Apple has gone from personal computers – and its iterations, including, desktops, laptops and tablets – to music players, cell phones and now watches. Today, Apple is less a computer company than a consumer electronics company, and even that doesn’t quite seem to go far enough, as it has become a lifestyle brand for many. Comparisons can be drawn to Sony during the mid-1980s when everyone aspired to a home filled with Sony televisions, Sony receivers and Sony Walkmans. Part of Apple’s success is that it sells a lifestyle that transcends its products, in which a glossy, sophisticated minimalism and simplicity, are among its most recognizable characteristics. It goes beyond their products, and is embodied in their advertising, their online and retail stores, and their packaging. And while the Apple Watch may be Apple’s latest “big” thing, I think something even bigger is underfoot at Apple, and it’s something you can’t buy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    November 05, 2014 —
    According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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