• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut fenestration expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction scheduling expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

    Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Extreme Flooding Overwhelms New York Roadways, Killing 1 Person

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    Health Care Construction Requires Compassion, Attention to Detail and Flexibility

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    The Three L’s of Real Estate Have New, Urgent Meaning

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Have Nearly Finished Technical Work

    Governor Bob Ferguson’s Recent Executive Orders – A Positive Sign for Washington’s Construction Industry

    Singer Akon’s Multibillion-Dollar Futuristic City in Africa Gets Final Notice

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    How New York City Plans to Soak Up the Rain

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88
    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

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    June 21, 2017 —
    In 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication. In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    February 01, 2022 —
    Senator Elizabeth Warren is doubling down on her criticism of private equity’s involvement in the U.S. housing market as the nation grapples with an affordable-housing shortage. In letters sent Thursday, the Massachusetts Democrat asked housing firms Progress Residential LLC, Invitation Homes Inc. and American Homes 4 Rent about recent rent hikes, plans to acquire more properties and the number of evictions in recent years. Warren and other Democrats have scrutinized Wall Street’s role in the housing market since the 2008 financial crisis. During the pandemic, lawmakers have been on high alert for violations of eviction moratoriums and unfair treatment as Americans struggled financially to stay on their feet. Warren also expressed concern about automated homebuying practices, which allow companies to buy up properties using algorithms. Bloomberg reported that last year Zillow offloaded thousands of homes to institutional investors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Akayla Gardner, Bloomberg

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    September 10, 2014 —
    California literally wrote the book on construction defect litigation. Construction defects began to surface after World War II due to cheap track homes being constructed haphazardly on a large scale. Throughout the 1960s, developers began utilizing the services of subcontractors to build massive developments. Rather than having their own employees perform the work, developers began relying more heavily on the specialty subcontractors to perform quality control functions. In 1969, the California Supreme Court expanded liability for developers with respect to residential housing through the concept of strict liability for mass produced homes. Strict liability defendants in construction defect cases may include builders of mass-produced homes, building site developers, component part manufacturers, and material suppliers. Courts have noted that there is little distinction between the “mass production and sale of homes and the mass production and sale of automobiles, and the pertinent overriding policy considerations are the same.” Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal. App. 2d 224, 227 (1969). Accordingly, developers of mass-produced tract homes may be held strictly liable whether or not there is privity of contract. Ibid. Courts have held, however, that there is no strict liability against contractors or sub-contractors. See Ranchwood Communities v. Jim Beat Construction (1996) 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 386; La Jolla Village Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 261 Cal.Rptr. 146. Within ten years, attorneys in California were using strict liability theories to seek compensation for homeowners. The initial strict liability lawsuits in California in the 70s and 80s generally applied to condominium projects. The Construction defect “industry” began to take off in the 1980s due to the housing boom and the enforcement of strict liability claims by the courts. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    June 06, 2018 —
    In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    March 02, 2020 —
    One insurer, who accepted the tender of defense in a construction defect case, successfully moved for summary judgment against the second insurer, who denied the insured's tender. Interstate Fire & Cas. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5800 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25,2019). Standard Waterproofing Corporation was hired by the construction manager, G Builders, to perform waterproofing work as part of condominium conversion project. After the project was completed,the condominium occupants experienced water damage in their units. The Condominium Board retained an engineer who reported numerous issues of water infiltration relating to Standard's work. The Condominium Board filed suit against the construction manager, who filed a third party complaint against Standard. Standard tendered to four different insurers, including plaintiff Interstate and defendant Aspen. Interstate agreed to defend, while Aspen and the other two insurers declined. Aspen argued there were no allegations of an occurrence resulting in property damage during its policy periods. Interstate filed for declaratory relief against Aspen and Standard. 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

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    October 02, 2015 —
    It’s football season again. Which means, of course, that in addition to touch downs and field goals, you’ll also see hooting and hollering when the ref throws down a yellow flag signaling that a foul has been committed. In Judicial Council of California v. Jacob Facilities, Inc., Case Nos. A140890, A141393 (August 20, 2015), The California Court of Appeals for the First District threw down its own yellow flag under the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031, finding that a contractor was required to disgorge all monies received on a project – to the tune of a whopping $18 million – when its parent company allowed the subsidiary’s contractor’s license to lapse when it rebranded a new company to perform the work of the old company but never formally assigned the contract. I think someone in marketing may be in big trouble. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Yasmeen, Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

    When Construction Defects Appear, Don’t Choose Between Rebuilding and Building Your Case

    October 11, 2021 —
    When construction defects occur during construction, they intensify pressure from a schedule that may already be tight. Defects must be analyzed, confirmed, removed, and replaced and this can be time consuming. Or course, a construction schedule rarely anticipates defects, demolition, and rework and the owner will still expect the project to be completed on time; however, pressing forward with immediate remediation may have unintended consequences. Before starting demolition, consider the evidentiary doctrine of spoliation. Spoilation occurs when a party destroys or unreasonably deprives another party of evidence and courts have imposed sanctions on a party that deprives an opponent of evidence. The doctrine has historically concerned documents, but its application has extended to electronic data, and courts also apply it to building conditions in construction defects cases. So, before tearing out or fixing defective work, consider the need to allow the opposing party to inspect, test and document it. Imagine this scenario. The concrete in a slab placed by your subcontractor shows low compressive strength results in the 28-day cylinder tests. Tearing out the slab and replacing it will put you at least a month behind schedule and you don’t want to waste any time before removing and replacing it. Nevertheless, while you’re rebuilding the defective slab, be mindful that you are also building a case. If you plan to recover the costs you incur because of the defective concrete from the responsible parties, you should allow the subcontractor (and possibly the concrete supplier and other implicated parties) to examine, preserve, and/or test the work in question. Failure to do so may subject you to spoliation sanctions and jeopardize your right to recover damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Curtis Martin, Peckar & Abramson
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    March 22, 2018 —
    The Trump administration’s recent focus on tariffs on steel and aluminum has largely been in the context of potential trade wars, discordant views regarding globalism, renegotiating NAFTA, and exemptions for key allies and trading partners such as Canada and Mexico. But there is a broader context that implicates not only the construction industry and materials prices, but also the future trajectory of the U.S. economy. The tariffs come during the ninth year of U.S. economic expansion. The economy gained momentum for much of 2017 and enters 2018 with considerable strength. The broadening of the U.S. economic expansion from merely being consumer led to also being associated with surging manufacturing output, construction activity, rising exports and business investment is attributable to many factors, including elevated business confidence and recently enacted tax reform. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anirban Basu, Sage Policy Group
    Mr. Basu may be contacted at basu@abc.org