• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing and waterproofing expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut soil 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


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

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Expert's Opinions On Causation Leads Way To Summary Judgment For Insurer

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Richest NJ Neighborhood Fights Plan for Low-Cost Homes on Toxic Dump

    U.S. Army Corps Announces Regulatory Program “Modernization” Plan

    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

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

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors

    Building Codes Evolve With High Wind Events

    Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

    Introducing Nomos LLP!

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Let’s Give ‘Em Sutton to Talk About: Tennessee Court Enforces Sutton Doctrine

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory
    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 Spending Measure Has Big Potential Infrastructure Boost

    February 14, 2018 —
    Construction and engineering companies find lots of good news in a newly enacted budget and appropriations package that keeps federal agencies open until late March, provides $89 billion for post-disaster relief and rebuilding and also holds out the prospect of an additional $20 billion in infrastructure funding over the next two years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    July 23, 2014 —
    The New York City Police Department is trying to figure out who replaced the American flags that fly atop the Brooklyn Bridge with white banners. The replacement flags were discovered this morning on the towers at opposite ends of the bridge, where the Stars and Stripes are normally displayed, and were removed, police said. The NYPD’s Counterterrorism Bureau and Emergency Service Unit are probing the incident and reviewing surveillance video to determine who replaced the flags and when the act took place, police said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg
    Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    April 10, 2019 —
    A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    January 14, 2015 —
    In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. Background The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST. Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

    August 06, 2014 —
    According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Freedom Mortgage Corporation has to pay treble damages and legal fees after Bergen County Superior Court Judge Gerald Escala found the company “liable under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act for providing a home refinance loan to a 70-year-old borrower it should have known would be unable to make the payments.” “Escala further ruled that Freedom Mortgage must hold off on obtaining a foreclosure judgment for a year to allow an opportunity for borrower Mamie Major to look for someone to buy the property or to obtain refinancing elsewhere,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    February 23, 2017 —
    Strategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    June 15, 2017 —
    Indemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied. In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage. 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

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    January 13, 2020 —
    Despite being aware of cyber risk, and even frightened by it, a shocking number of companies in the construction industry have neither a cyber insurance policy nor a basic cyber security plan to deal with a hack or breach into their computer systems. Once breached, companies with no plan in place become, essentially, a rudderless ship subject to the whims of criminal tides. A proper cyber plan lays out at least the following:
    • the criteria for when a plan would be triggered (i.e., in the event of a breach or a hack);
    • which persons inside the company (in-house counsel, IT personnel, executive, project managers) and which persons outside the company (attorney with knowledge of cyber issues and ideally construction law as well; forensic computer experts, crisis management experts; and an insurance broker familiar with cyber policies) should be involved;
    • the chain of command and communication in this type of situation and the distinct roles each of the above players will fulfill (Note: this is not the same as the normal corporate chain of command); and
    • the various available options to address the breach situation, which will all depend upon the facts at issue—such as the type and extent of the breach and how much of what particular kind of information was lost, stolen or exfiltrated.
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Volack, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of