• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating 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


    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)

    Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers Superpowers

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Toll Brothers Snags Home Builder of the Year Honors at HLS

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Empowering Success: The Advantages of Female Attorneys in Construction Defect Law

    BWB&O Partners are Recognized as 2022 AV Preeminent Attorneys by Martindale-Hubbell!

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Angela Cooner Receives Prestigious ASA State Advocate Award

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    TxDOT: Flatiron/Dragados Faces Default Over Bridge Design Issues

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

    Everybody Is Going to End Up Paying for Texas' Climate Crisis

    Texas Legislative Update
    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

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    November 13, 2013 —
    The National Association of Realtors is predicting that home builders will continue to be cautious in the number of homes they build, leading to a continued shortage and higher prices for those that are built. “The inventory shortage will not go away,” said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. According to Mr. Yun, the inventory is the lowest it has been in 13 years. As a result of many factors, including rising home prices and rising interest rates, the group is predicting that new home sales will remain flat next year, offering little incentive to builders. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    July 30, 2019 —
    Given the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong. That is, with one exception. And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts. It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    November 23, 2020 —
    After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    June 11, 2014 —
    Come home to a hot iron and smoldering clothes this afternoon? Soon, it may not be a sign of forgetfulness, but rather evidence that you’ve been hacked. In coming years, your smartphone will be able to lock your house, turn on the air conditioning, check whether the milk is out of date, or even heat up your iron. Great news, except that all that convenience could also let criminals open your doors, spy on your family or drive your connected car to their lair. “As these technologies become more sophisticated, it opens up a broader spectrum of threats,” said Gunter Ollmann, chief technology officer of IOActive, a tech security firm in Seattle. A world of connected devices makes it possible “for the bad guys to have permanent entry into your household.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy Thomson, Bloomberg
    Ms. Thomson may be contacted at athomson6@bloomberg.net

    Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

    October 16, 2023 —
    On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023). The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground. This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLC
    Ms. Scrivener may be contacted at denise@farrislegal.net

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    June 19, 2023 —
    If you’re a regularly reader of the California Construction Law Blog you’re aware of Business and Professions Code section 7031 which courts have variously described as “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. We haven’t seen many cases applying Section 7031 in an arbitration setting, however, until now. In Vascos Excavation Group LLC v. Gold, 87 Cal.App.5th 842 (2022), a contractor who prevailed on a payment claim in arbitration, had its victory snatched from its fingertips by the Superior Court which found that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority because the contractor was subject to Section 7031. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:

    January 17, 2022 —
    1. Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627 – economic loss rule
    2. Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks ( (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228 – abandonment does not apply to public works – total cost theory is allowed
    3. Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 568 – architect liable in absence of privity
    4. Cates Const., Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28 – no tort recovery on bonds – performance bonds can cover contract warranties
    5. Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1384 – liability for concealed conditions
    6. Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 803 – mechanic lien remedy is constitutional
    7. Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 541 – indemnity implies obligation to defend [now limited to commercial contracts under CCP 2782 (c)–(h)]
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ted Senet, Gibbs Gidden
    Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com