• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction safety expertFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    Yes, Virginia, Contract Terms Do Matter: Financing Term Offers Owner an Escape Hatch

    Will AI Completely Transform Our Use of Computers?

    2023 Construction Outlook: Construction Starts Expected to Flatten

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Annual Construction Defect Seminar

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”

    Does the Recording of a Mechanic’s Lien Memorandum by Itself Constitute Process? Read to Find Out

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    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

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Architecture, Robotics, and the Importance of Human Interaction – An Interview with Prof. Kathrin Dörfler

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    NTSB Outlines Pittsburgh Bridge Structure Specifics, Finding Collapse Cause Will Take Months

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against 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. Drawing 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

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    November 20, 2013 —
    The New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, has ruled that when an insurer disclaims duty to defend, “if the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would have otherwise negated the duty to indemnify.” The insurer who makes a failed claim that there was no duty to defend cannot thereafter claim exclusions. This recent New York decision is discussed by Allen R. Wolff and Eric R. Reed of Anderson Kill in their Policyholder Advisor. They note that the decision “confirms that the estoppel rule applies in New York , as it does in at least four other states.” But this may not be the last word. American Guarantee made a motion for reargument, which the court granted. The case will return to the court in January 2014. They note that “if paying defense costs is the only consequence an insurance company faces for breaching its duty to defend the insured, an insurance company has a financial incentive to ‘kick the can down the road.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    January 31, 2014 —
    Brazilian authorities announced 5.6 billion reais ($2.3 billion) will be spent on infrastructure directly related to the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games and those costs will rise as projects are added. Yesterday’s announcement comes months behind schedule, and after pressure on public bodies to reveal exactly how much it will cost for Rio to be the first South American city to host the quadrennial showpiece. Delays and cost overruns to several projects related to this year’s soccer World Cup have sharpened the focus on the Olympics. “We are committed to being on schedule,” Sports Minister Aldo Rebelo said at a press conference in Rio to announce the spending plans. “It is the first time we have a consortium of three levels of government. It is in an effort to ensure the success and execution of all the commitments to deliver the Olympics in Rio in 2016.” Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net and Mr. Biller may be contacted at dbiller1@bloomberg.net. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja and David Biller, Bloomberg

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    October 28, 2011 —

    The pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011).

    Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides and other noxious gases. This caused corrosion and damage to the air-conditioning and ventilation units, refrigeration coils, copper tubing, faucets, metal surfaces, electrical appliances and other personal items. The homeowners also alleged the compounds emitted by the drywall caused bodily injury, such as allergic reactions, headaches, etc.

    Harbor Walk’s insurer, Evanston, filed for a declaratory judgment that the pollution exclusion precluded coverage.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    September 03, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World

    September 06, 2021 —
    Despite the easing of COVID-19 restrictions in California, many of the changes imposed on the legal industry by the pandemic will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. One major change for litigators has been conducting depositions remotely. This change takes an already intricate task and makes it further complex by adding a new dimension of factors to consider. It is imperative that litigators understand these factors to avoid giving their opposition an undue advantage and to maximize the utility of depositions. While we may disagree as to whether remote depositions are a welcome change, the fact of the matter is that lawyers must adapt to them and provide adequate legal representation. This article explores some of the challenges and opportunities presented by remote depositions.
    1. The Deponent
    2. The deponent is the single most important element of any deposition and handing it properly becomes even more delicate in remote settings. I recently took a deposition where the plaintiff met their attorney for the first time at their deposition. The result was not spectacular. The plaintiff was ill-prepared, and the case eventually settled for far less than what it might have if it had been better prepared.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Islam M. Ahmad, Wilke Fleury, LLP
    Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at iahmad@wilkefleury.com

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    September 25, 2018 —
    BIM models are mostly used by foremen on construction sites. But what if they could be made available for workers at the press of a button? This question was what the Finnish government-funded KIRA pilot project set out to answer. As a by-product, the project also produced augmented reality (AR) solutions for construction sites. The research project was called ”Digitalization of a construction project based on role and location information” (RoPa). It was conducted by construction company Fira and engineering consultancy Sweco. 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

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    June 15, 2011 —

    The Houston law firm of Eggleston & Briscoe successfully defended their client, Colony Insurance Company, which was being sued for $22 million over roof hail damage. The Summer Hill Village Community Association did not convince a jury that the insurance company had violated state law or breached its contract when it denied coverage for the roofs. The homeowners association contended that the roof damage was due to a hail storm in 2007. The jury agreed with experts who contended the damage was already present at that time.

    Mr. Eggleston noted that “when your client is sued for a claim of $22 million, it is very satisfying to hear a jury agree that they in fact acted honorably and owed nothing.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com