• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building consultant expertFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness public projectsFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultant
    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


    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

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

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    Enhanced Geothermal Energy Could Be the Next Zero-Carbon Hero

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Price Escalation Impacts

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

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

    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    The Future Has Arrived: New Technologies in Construction

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    Feds to Repair Damage From Halted Border Wall Work in Texas, California
    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

    New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

    November 23, 2020 —
    In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

    May 08, 2023 —
    Under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq., contractors hired to work on federal construction projects are required to furnish payment bonds in order to ensure payment to certain persons that provide labor for the project. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a published decision clarifying the type of work that qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company (issued April 26, 2023). In that case, the U.S. Department of Defense hired Forney Enterprises (Forney) as the prime contractor on a renovation project at the Pentagon. Forney retained Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) to provide the required Miller Act payment bond. Forney then entered into a subcontract with Elliott Dickson (Dickson), a professional engineer, to work as a project manager on the contract. Dickson primarily supervised labor on the site, but also performed other tasks, including logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself. Dickson’s work required him to be onsite on a daily basis. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Hummel, Seyfarth
    Mr. Hummel may be contacted at jhummel@seyfarth.com

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    December 22, 2019 —
    Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    March 16, 2017 —
    In continuing our series on common contract provisions found in construction contracts, this post highlights no-damages-for-delay clauses. Parties to a contract – particularly a construction contract – may agree that the performance of the contract must occur within a set amount of time. When a party is delayed in performing a contract, it may incur additional costs due to the delay. In most circumstances, unless the parties agree otherwise, the delayed party would be entitled to an extension of time to perform the contract. But it may also seek to recover the additional costs resulting from the delay. A no-damages-for-delay clause attempts to prevent the delayed party from recovering those additional costs. In construction contracts, an upstream party, such as an owner or prime contractor, typically relies on a no-damages-for-delay clause when presented with a delay claim by a downstream party, such as a subcontractor. Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

    July 13, 2020 —
    Contractors doing business with the Federal Government, particularly with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), commonly handle sensitive information that is not intended to be disseminated. Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) is one such type and is more specifically defined as “information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with laws, regulations and government-wide policies.”1 Because some DoD contracts require contractors to handle CUI, certain safeguards have been put in place to ensure its security. This article briefly touches on the current cybersecurity protocols, followed by a discussion of the new system being developed by the DoD, and what contractors most need to know about the new system. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) has long required contractors to comply with certain cybersecurity standards, as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). Specifically, DFARS sought to implement the cybersecurity framework found in NIST Special Publication (“SP”) 800-171, entitled “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations.” NIST SP 800-171 sets forth fourteen (14) families of recommended security requirements for protecting the confidentiality of CUI in nonfederal systems and organizations, including, among others, access control, audit and accountability, incident response, personnel security, and system and information integrity. However, after a series of data breaches, the DoD reassessed the efficacy of the continued use of NIST SP 800-171 and ultimately decided to institute a new methodology to ensure the security of CUI. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joseph N. Frost, Peckar & Abramson
    Mr. Frost may be contacted at jfrost@pecklaw.com

    #1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

    December 30, 2015 —
    Stephen A. Sunseria of Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP discussed how the Fifth Appellate District court “issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District’s prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Ca.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act.” Sunseri stated that “McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts.” Read the full story... In another article regarding the McMillin Albany LLC case, Garret Murai of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP posted an article on his California Construction Law Blog that went over the legal debate of California’s Right to Repair Act including Liberty Mutual, Burch v. Superior Court, and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court and concluded with a discussion of the McMillin Albany case. Murai predicted, rightly it turned out, that the case would see a “final round before the California Supreme Court.” Read the full story... In their December 2, 2015 article, authors Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger reported that the California Supreme Court granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision: “The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

    September 09, 2019 —
    The Department of Defense (DoD) has announced a new five-tier standard for cybersecurity certification, which it calls the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or “CMMC”. Taking an unusual approach to informing the industry, the DoD has provided only limited information about the new standard through its website and a “road tour” led by the newly-appointed head of the DoD’s Chief Information Security Office (CISO), Ms. Katie Arrington. During her recent presentation at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) meeting, on August 8, 2019, Ms. Arrington revealed several new details about the requirements. Outlined below are the most significant facts from that presentation and the DoD’s website:
    All companies doing business with DoD (and all tiers of subcontractors) will need to obtain CMMC certifications.
    DoD will require the new certifications from all contractors (including suppliers and subcontractors) that are performing under a DoD contract. Even contractors that do not process or handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) must obtain CMMCs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexander Gorelik, Smith Currie
    Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    December 09, 2011 —

    The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently ruled that primary insurers are necessary parties, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, in a declaratory judgment action being pursued by an excess carrier. See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. LNC Communities II, LLC, 2011 WL 5548955 (D. Colo. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 is almost identical to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and pertains to the joinder of persons needed for “just adjudication.” The Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (“ICSOP”) sought a declaratory judgment that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendants (collectively referred to as “Lennar Companies”) with regard to the underlying lawsuit brought by The Falls at Legend Trail Owners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). Id. at *2. In its lawsuit, the HOA alleged Lennar Companies were liable for construction defects at The Falls at Legend Trail residential development.

    Lennar Companies held two primary insurance policies, one issued by OneBeacon Insurance Company f/k/a General Accident Insurance Company (“General Accident”) and the other issued by American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“American Safety”). Lennar Companies also carried excess policies issued by ICSOP and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (“Ohio Casualty”).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

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