• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut concrete expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim 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


    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Construction Robots 2023

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    2022 California Construction Law Update

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    Hirers Must Affirmatively Exercise Retained Control to be Liable Under Hooker Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks Among Top 25 Firms on NLJ’s 2021 Women in Law Scorecard

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Pushing the Edge: Crews Carve Dam Out of Remote Turkish Mountains

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Home Prices Expected to Increase All Over the U.S.

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    Supreme Court’s New York Harbor Case Isn’t a ‘Sopranos’ Episode

    Happenings in and around the 2015 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s One, Two… Eight Strikes: You’re Out!”

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/05/22) – Hurricane Ian, the Inflation Reduction Act, and European Real Estate
    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

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on July 13, 2017 The 2017 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded, and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session, most notably SB 204/HB 377. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement. The following construction-related Bills passed in both the House and Senate and will become law if approved by the Governor. Senate Bill (SB) 204/House Bill (HB) 377: Relating to the Statute of Repose for causes of action based on design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and was approved by the Governor on June 14, 2017. This bill becomes effective on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    April 06, 2011 —

    On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.

    The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.

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

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    March 05, 2015 —
    The court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar defense or indemnity for the insured's obligation to clean up a superfund site. Decker Mfg. Corp. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12169 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2015). From 1966 to 1981, Decker disposed of its waste materials at the township landfill. The landfill was closed in 1981. Decker was insured under a CGL policy for a four year period from January 1, 1973, through January 1, 1977. After the landfill was closed, the EPA began an investigation which eventually led to a Unilateral Administrative Order in 1995 in which Decker was ordered to remove drums, construct a landfill cap, and monitor groundwater. Decker notified Travelers of the EPA's order on November 14, 1995. Travelers responded that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Decker. 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

    Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos

    September 23, 2019 —
    Although asbestos had its heyday in America half a century ago, asbestos exposure remains a major health risk and financial liability for construction professionals. One study estimates that at least 1.3 million construction industry workers are still at risk for occupational asbestos exposure. Up until the 1980s, U.S. manufacturers mixed asbestos into thousands of construction products. Asbestos is a unique mineral that can be worked into flexible fibers while still retaining its durability and heat resistance. Unfortunately, the fibrous nature of asbestos also makes it highly toxic. This article provides an overview of what construction professionals need to know about asbestos, including:
    • potential long-term health consequences of asbestos exposure for workers and short-term financial consequences for employers;
    • Occupational Safety and Health Administration asbestos regulations;
    • how to identify and safely remove asbestos-containing materials; and
    • what people should do if they have a history of asbestos exposure.
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel King, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. King may be contacted at dking@asbestos.com

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

    September 14, 2017 —
    Architect Mies van der Rohe once said that, “An office is a machine for working in.” From a maintenance person’s point of view that might be true. For a user, an office should offer a productive working environment. A pilot project, led by Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties, is trying to find out how a digital twin of a building would serve both the needs of the maintenance worker and the office worker. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    February 11, 2013 —
    A judge has scheduled mediation and trial over the claims of Rihanna that her Beverley Hills home suffers from construction defects. The singer claims that the previous owners, Adriana and Heather Rudomin, did not disclose construction defects which lead to flooding from water leaks in January 2010. The Rudomins did not appear at the February 7th hearing, and the judge fined them $500. They will be required to explain their absence on March 12. The mediation will begin on May 7. The trial has been scheduled for February 24, 2014, and is expected to last three weeks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    February 03, 2020 —
    In California there are few tools which work to protect the employer, and California employers may have just lost another one. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law AB 51, which bans the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts. More specifically, AB 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code, making it unlawful to require a prospective employee, or current employee, to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or the California Labor Code, starting January 1, 2020. Additionally, an employer is also prohibited from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant or employee who may choose not to sign a voluntary arbitration agreement. Previously, an employer was able to require employees and prospective employees to agree to arbitration to resolve almost any and all disputes between the employee and the employer as a term of their employment. These terms were often the bulk of employers’ written contracts. Employers could have employees waive the right to a jury trial, the right to court costs, and other expenses, provided that the employer paid for the expenses of the alternative dispute resolution. The injured employees right to recover attorney’s fees was always a non-waivable right under the Labor Code. There were only a few actions which could not be arbitrated, the most prominent exception being the right to seek recovery under the Private Attorney’s General Action (PAGA). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tim Scully, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Scully may be contacted at tscully@porterlaw.com

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    January 05, 2017 —
    We’ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see here, here, and here). The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides in general that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policies. In the twenty years since Privette was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor’s employees to sue the “hirer” of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who “hired” the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198. Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties, that it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661. In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc., Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker and Padilla exceptions where a general contractor was contractually responsible for overall site safety. 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