• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windows
    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


    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

    Recent Regulatory Activity

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Recent Developments in Legislative Efforts To Combat Climate Change

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface

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

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino Prevail on Summary Judgment

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    New York Establishes a Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    “For What It’s Worth”

    Professional Services Exclusion in CGL Policies

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship
    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

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    February 28, 2018 —
    I have spoken on several occasions here at Construction Law Musings about the interplay (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract as it relates to construction in Virginia. The general rule is that fraud and contract claims don’t mix and a fraud claim in the face of a contractual one is likely to be dismissed. However, there are exceptions to this rule as there are to just about every legal rule (we construction lawyers would be out of a job without them). A good examination of the interplay between fraud and contract was set out by the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Zuberi et al v. Hirezi et al. In that case the Zuberis purchased a home from the Hirezis and later filed suit alleging that the Hirezis concealed serious structural defects that made the house uninhabitable and unsellable. Among the many claims by the Zuberis were those fro fraud, fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, negligence per se, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and civil conspiracy. In short, they were out for blood. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    February 16, 2017 —
    In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    October 26, 2020 —
    The $8.5-billion revamp of O'Hare International Airport may have to be delayed because of COVID-19 related economic impacts, according to documents included in paperwork to refinance existing airport debt. The city forcefully disagreed with that summation, however, and says the project will move forward and is not endangered. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    April 14, 2011 —

    Assemblyman John Oceguera has written a bill that would redefine the term Construction Defect, set statutory limitations, and force the prevailing party to pay for attorney’s fees. Assembly Bill 401 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    Currently, the law in Nevada states that “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance, which is done in violation of law, including in violation of local codes or ordinances, is a constructional defect.” However, AB401 “provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that workmanship which exceeds the standards set forth in the applicable law, including any applicable local codes or ordinances, is not a constructional defect.”

    The Nevada courts may award attorney fees to the prevailing party today. However, AB401 mandates that attorney fees must be awarded, and the exact award is to be determined by the Court. “(1) The court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which must be an element of costs and awarded as costs; and (2) the amount of any attorney’s fees awarded must be determined by and approved by the court.”

    AB401 also sets a three year statutory limit “for an action for damages for certain deficiencies, injury or wrongful death caused by a defect in construction if the defect is a result of willful misconduct or was fraudulently concealed.”

    This Nevada bill is in the early stages of development.

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

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

    May 24, 2021 —
    The parties in a $238-million dispute over the construction of the third set of locks for the Panama Canal are raising issues concerning alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitrators in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[2] The case may address rarely litigated issues concerning whether arbitrators who sit on multiple arbitration panels together or who support appointment of each other to lead arbitration panels have disabling conflicts of interest. The case pits Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (“Grupo”), a consortium of Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Panamanian construction firms, against Autoridad del Canal de Panama (“ACP”), the Panamanian entity that operates the Panama Canal and that sponsored the multi-billion-dollar, decade-long project to expand the Canal’s capacity by building a new set of locks (the “Project”). The current dispute (the “Panama 1 Arbitration”), which centers on the suitability of the rock coming from the excavations to be used to produce concrete aggregates for the Project, was arbitrated before a three-member ICC Tribunal and resulted in a $238-million award to ACP and against Grupo. The ICC Tribunal reversed a decision of the dispute review board established in the parties’ contract. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP and Philip Z. Langer, Fox Rothschild LLP Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com Mr. Langer may be contacted at planger@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    July 01, 2014 —
    The Ninth Circuit held that a claim for advertising injury was properly denied under the prior publication exclusion. Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10737 (9th Cir. June 10, 2014). Street Surfing began selling a two-wheeled, inline skateboard called the "Wave" in December 2004. By 2007, Street Surfing also sold and advertised accessories for the Wave, such as "Lime Green Street Surfing Wheels for The Wave," and the "New Ultimate Street Surfer Wheel Set." Rhyn Noll, who owned the registered trademark "Streetsurfer," sued Street Surfing in June 2008, claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and unfair trade practices. Street Surfing had known that Noll owned the "Streetsurfer" trademark since early 2005. In September 2008, Street Surfing submitted a claim for coverage to Great American and tendered Noll's complaint. 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

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    December 20, 2021 —
    The insurer was unsuccessful in moving for summary judgment on the insured's claim for loss of business income and civil authority coverage due to losses caused by two hurricanes. Townsley v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202698 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2021). Hurricane Laura struck southeast Louisiana on August 27, 2020 and Hurricane Delta made landfall in the same area on October 9, 2020. Both hurricanes caused property damage and an interruption of business for the insured law firm. Power outages and mandatory evacuation orders caused by both storms created a loss of income for the law firm. Ohio Security denied coverage under the business income, extra expense, and civil authority provisions. The law firm sued and Ohio Security moved for summary judgment. From the undisputed facts, the court could not determine the law firm's entitlement to business income and extra expense coverage, so the motion was denied for these claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    June 28, 2013 —
    There’s been a rapid growth in the sale of solar panels, and that’s lead some industry observers to wonder if manufacturers have been cutting back on quality. Current use of solar is six times what it was in 2008, with more than forty percent of that in the last year. The growth shows no sign of stopping, either. The Solar Energy Industry Association expects the amount of power generated by solar to increase by more than two-thirds in 2013. With the oversupply, some fear that companies are relaxing their quality control. The New York Times found that there were widespread problems of defective units in solar cells, chiefly those manufactured in China. The Times article noted that at two solar plants in Spain, defect rates reached 34.5 percent. Some industry observers disagree. The Insurance Journal quoted Andy Klump, the CEO of Clean Energy Associates, a Shanghai firm that provides quality assurance in the solar industry, who said that if a business had a 34 percent failure rate, “they would be out of business in a heartbeat.” Mr. Klump described the Times article as “not realistic.” If the Times is right, Scott Turner, a construction insurance attorney, feels that the industry should ready itself for “a wave of large lawsuits.” Turner feels that “this litigation wave could make the battles over liability and insurance coverage for Chinese drywall seem like a small claims dispute.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of