• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction defect 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


    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

    COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

    Massachusetts Appellate Court Confirms Construction Defects are Not Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policies

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Labor Intensive

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    “License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License

    Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Safe and Safer

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Architect Sues School District

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    Precast Standards' Work Under Way as Brittle Fracture Warnings Aired

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    January 28, 2014 —
    The owners of the Elizabeth Lofts condominiums in the Pearl District, Portland, Oregon have settled with Victaulic Co., the plumbing supplier who allegedly “sold failing parts,” reported The Oregonian. The case had been scheduled to go to trial this month. “Lawsuits filed by owners at the Avenue Lofts, the Benson Tower and The Edge Lofts are moving forward in federal courts.” The Elizabeth Lofts owners alleged “parts used in the buildings’ plumbing systems were disintegrating and causing water damage,” according to The Oregonian. The owners association had sought over three million in damages, though Phillip E. Joseph, Elizabeth Lofts owners’ attorney, said “he couldn’t disclose the terms” of the settlement. Victaulic’s attorney “declined to comment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

    September 16, 2024 —
    The Washington Construction Lien Statute, RCW 60.04 et seq., exists to help secure payment for work performed for the improvement of real property.[1] The statute grants “any person furnishing labor, professional services, materials, or equipment for the improvement of real property” the authority to claim “a lien upon the improvement for the contract price of labor, professional services, materials, or equipment furnished.” RCW 60.04.021. Exercising lien rights is one of the most useful tools available to a contractor or supplier trying to recover payment owed on a project. A properly recorded lien binds the project property, which is typically the most valuable asset held by the owner, as security for the amounts owed to the lien claimant. Additionally, the lien statute provides a basis for the claimant to recover the costs of recording the lien and its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in litigating the foreclosure of the lien. While the lien statute authorizes the right to lien, it also provides a series of strict requirements and procedures that a claimant must follow to properly exercise its rights. The claimant must carefully comply with all statutory requirements. This article does not endeavor to explain all the intricacies of the lien statute, but rather discusses three of the most common mistakes that result in the loss of lien rights. See our lien and bond claim manual for a more detailed guide to construction liens in Washington. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    July 25, 2022 —
    The Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) – Public Contract Code section 3500 et seq. – requires state agencies to consider the carbon content of the following products when awarding contracts:
    • Structural steel;
    • Concrete reinforcing steel;
    • Flat glass; and
    • Mineral wool board insulation.
    It is anticipated that additional products may be added through future legislation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Eighth Circuit refused to retroactively apply an Arkansas statute establishing coverage for faulty workmanship. J-McDaniel Const. Co., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14911 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014). The homeowners sued J-McDaniel for faulty workmanship in constructing their home. The defective construction work was performed by subcontractors. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify J-McDaniel. The insured sued Mid-Continent. The district court dismissed the claim pursuant to Essex Ins. Co. v. Holder, 261 S.W. 3d 456, 460 (Ark. 2008). In Essex, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that defective workmanship resulting in damages only to the work product itself was not an occurrence. Although The Arkansas legislature overruled Essex by statute, the district court found that the Arkansas case law barred retroactive application of the statute. 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

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    January 09, 2023 —
    The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed insurance coverage for a South Carolina policyholder based on the “axiomatic principle” that an insurer which fails to fully and fairly articulate its potential coverage defenses in a reservation of rights letter loses the right to contest coverage on those grounds. Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owner’s Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 19-2009, 2022 WL 17592121 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2017)). More particularly, in Stoneledge, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam a South Carolina District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association that had successfully sued its general contractors for construction defects and was seeking to recover the damages owed from the contractors’ insurers. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the insurers’ vague reservation of rights letters failed to reserve the defenses on which the insurers purported to deny coverage. The question before the court in Stoneledge was whether the two insurers that had each agreed to defend their respective general-contractor insureds in the homeowner association’s underlying litigation had sufficiently informed their policyholders of their coverage positions. Specifically, the court considered whether the insurers provided notice of their intention to challenge coverage on specific bases and explained why those bases applied in their respective reservation of rights letters. Both of the insurers’ letters followed the typical approach of identifying various policy provisions and exclusions and outlining the general mechanics of those provisions, but they fell short of applying the provisions or exclusions to the facts in the case at hand. Further, the letters stated that the insurers would reevaluate how the provisions applied as the underlying case progressed. One of the insurer’s letters expressed doubt as to coverage but did not offer any analysis on the reasons for the prospective coverage denial. Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    September 12, 2022 —
    The commercial construction industry must rely on skilled labor to survive. Skilled labor, however, is hard to come by. In fact, many construction firms report projects being delayed because of shortages in the workforce. Part of the problem is training. Few companies have the time, resources or opportunities to train new construction workers. But the biggest reason for the labor shortage in the construction industry is simply a lack of people joining the trades. Decades ago, construction was a respected career choice. Over the years, however, the pressure to get into a four-year college has created negative perceptions of working in the trades. Some commercial construction companies choose to work with fewer crews as a result of the lack of skilled labor, therefore limiting the number of jobs they can handle. The labor shortage in the construction industry has simply made it nearly impossible to find subcontractors to adequately staff upcoming projects (one survey found that 35% of contractors had to turn down jobs due to a lack of skilled laborers). This then leads to hikes in construction costs and delays in scheduling, which can take a major toll on business. Reprinted courtesy of Grant Robbins, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    December 11, 2013 —
    In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2012 WL 6004087 (D. Colo. 2012). The Scottsdale case arose out of the construction of a 507-unit apartment complex in Arapahoe County, Colorado in which a number of defects became apparent during construction. As a result, the owner of the project sued the general contractor and/or the construction manager, seeking to recover more than $22 million for various construction deficiencies. Id. at *1. The general contractor was insured under policies issued by several carriers. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (“Scottsdale”) and National Union Fire Ins. Co. (“National Union) provided umbrella coverage, and CNA and American Zurich Ins. Co. (“Zurich”) provided primary insurance under commercial general liability policies. About five years later, the construction defect case settled for $8.5 million dollars. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
    Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder. The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim. A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id. Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006). In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id. It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ. Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy. About the Author Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of