• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut building expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildingsFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut expert witness roofingFairfield Connecticut reconstruction 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


    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Lewis Brisbois’ Houston Office Selected as a 2020 Top Workplace by the Houston Chronicle

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    2017 California Employment Law Update

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License

    Waiver of Consequential Damages: The Most Important Provision in a Construction Contract

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021
    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

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

    October 19, 2017 —
    In Pawn 1st v. City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeals rule that would have unduly restrained alienation of property in Arizona. The Court of Appeals found that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment acted beyond its authority when it granted an area variance to a pawn shop where the special circumstances causing a need for the variance existed before the pawn shop purchased the property. Under Arizona law, boards of adjustment cannot grant an area variance where the special circumstances requiring the variance are self-imposed. The Court of Appeals adopted a rule that knowledge of special circumstances at the time of purchase made the special circumstances self-imposed, foreclosing the purchaser’s ability to obtain a variance. This rule would have severely restricted property purchasers’ ability to obtain area variances in Arizona and by extension likely strained property transactions. The underlying case involved a pawn shop that was proposed in southeast Phoenix. After the property purchaser obtained approval for a required use permit (for a pawn shop) and a variance (for a 500 foot residential setback) from the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, a competing pawn shop filed a special action arguing that the variance was a use variance, not an area variance, beyond the board of adjustment’s authority. Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer attorneys Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann and Brianna Long Mr. Wood may be contacted at nwood@swlaw.com Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.com Mr. Noel may be contacted at ngriemsmann@swlaw.com Ms. Brianna may be contacted at bllong@swlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    May 11, 2020 —
    In support of financial institutions and borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a number of provisions permitting lenders to suspend, during a covered period, requirements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with respect to categorizing certain loan modifications as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) due to COVID-19. In light of the CARES Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a series of answers to FAQs for financial institutions with respect to loan modifications. The FAQs help guide lenders as well as borrowers as they address pending defaults under existing credit facilities. The FAQs encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers who may be unable to meet their payment obligations due to COVID-19 in several ways: Payment Accommodations Short-term accommodations which modify, extend, suspend or defer repayment terms should be intended to facilitate the borrower’s ability to work through the immediate impact of the virus. According to the FAQs, all loan accommodation programs should ultimately be targeted towards repayment. To that end, the FDIC recommends that financial institutions address deferred or skipped payments by either extending the original maturity date or by making those payments due in a balloon payment at the maturity date of the loan. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis and Kristen E. Andreoli Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    August 06, 2019 —
    New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    April 19, 2022 —
    Subrogation professionals have always been looking for ways to defeat onerous waiver of subrogation provisions in contracts signed by insureds. However, even when contracts are unsigned, if there is intent when the contract is made – usually long before a loss occurs – a waiver of subrogation can doom what otherwise may have been a strong case. The Superior Court of Delaware considered such a scenario to determine whether a waiver of subrogation provision applied to a multimillion-dollar subrogation case. In State of Delaware Insurance Coverage Office and Factory Mutual Insurance Co., both as subrogee of the University of Delaware v. DiSabatino Construction Co., Schlosser & Associates Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and V.E. Guerrazzi, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-08-080, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2022), the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying contract. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue the defendants in their suit to recover damages as a result of a fire. The court specifically denied the plaintiffs’ argument that since the contract was not signed and another “short form” version was later used the waiver of subrogation provision should not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Viewpoint: Firms Should Begin to Analyze Lessons Learned in 2020

    January 04, 2021 —
    If there’s one phrase that describes 2020, it was not “business as usual.” How AEC firms fared last year depended upon their strategies for navigating an uncertain landscape. While we talk about finding a new normal, company leaders in 2021 will have to think more expansively about what they want that “normal” to look like. Reprinted courtesy of Rich Friedman, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    February 25, 2014 —
    Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana, developers of the Mirada condominium in Harlem, New York can avoid a contempt charge from state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, “if they make the required repairs and obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy at the property,” according to The Real Deal. Scarpinito and Sanjana “agreed to deposit $200,000 into an escrow account and make repairs to stop flooding and other defects at the 161 East 110th Street condo, which are required to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the city Department of Buildings.” Last December, the Attorney General “filed suit against the developers, alleging they submitted false filings to his office in claiming that Scarpinito’s 83-year-old mother was the actual developer of the 68-unit condo.” Furthermore, the condo board lawyers submitted a complaint to Schneiderman “detailing extensive defects in the building, including water leaks entering the building from the roof and façade.” The developers have been ordered “to submit weekly reports to the AG’s office detailing progress on the repairs and obtaining the certificate of occupancy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    July 23, 2014 —
    The New York Times reported that New York has seen a boom of buildings such as power plants, churches, schools, parking garages, and theaters converted to apartment and condo spaces. Part of the reason for the surge was due to land scarcity—but the New York Times also stated that zoning on the “old-time structures are far bigger than what zoning would allow on their lots today.” Plus, “[a]daptive reuse can also be speedier.” However, Toby Moskovits, president of Heritage Equity Partners, stated that the real reason might be curb appeal: “There’s a general movement now that goes beyond real estate, a reaction to a world that’s become increasingly electronic. People are more comfortable with something that feels authentic.” Heritage Equity Partners is currently converting a church-and-school complex into apartments in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    July 06, 2020 —
    AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of