• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut delay claim expert witnessFairfield Connecticut slope 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


    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Justice Dept., EPA Ramp Up Environmental Justice Enforcement

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    Texas Walks the Line on When the Duty to Preserve Evidence at a Fire Scene Arises

    What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard

    National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

    Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

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

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

    The Heat Is On

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward
    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

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    April 01, 2015 —
    The Charlotte Observer reported that a homebuilder couple “was arrested Tuesday on charges alleging that they kept more than $600,000 three families paid them to build Lake Wylie homes that were never completed.” Robert Scott Kuhlkin and wife, Sherry Lynn Kuhlkin “accepted $189,000 from one family, $239,000 from another family, and $233,000 from a third family to build houses, 16th Circuit assistant solicitor Matthew Hogge said in court, but instead they ‘took the money for themselves.’” The alleged victims told the court that the homes had defects or were left unfinished. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    December 31, 2014 —
    Ewing received quite a bit of attention around the blogosphere, and Tred R. Eyerly of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert wrote a nicely succinct case summary on his blog, Insurance Law Hawaii: “In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    September 24, 2013 —
    For every condo currently being built in Denver, there are 40 apartment units. And there are some who think that this is being done to evade construction defect lawsuits. At issue is the statute of limitations for construction defects. Under Colorado law, condominium buyers have six years after the completion of constrution to sue for construction defects, unless the defect isn’t discovered until the fifth or six year, in which case they are given until the eighth year. But what if someone built an apartment building, rented out the units for six years, and then converted the whole thing to condominiums? Some think that the construction defect clock would be reset. Amie Mayhew, the CEO of the Colorado Association of Home Builders noted that if this is the case, “you’d be back at square one.” But Doug Benson, a construction defect attorney, thinks that if a builder did this, and didn’t make any further construction, no one would be able to sue for construction defects, even if the condo owners found them. Mr. Benson, who represents homeowners, said that “they’re apartment homes and that’s just to avoid liability.” Mike Gifford, the president of the Associated General Contractors of Colorado, noted that insurance companies were already wary of apartment complexes, fearing that they would be turned into condos. Whatever the cause, Denver seems to have a shortage of condos. But, they’re going to have a lot of apartments available. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    January 21, 2019 —
    If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)

    February 25, 2014 —
    Case: Lowman v. Wilbur, et al., 178 Wn.2d 165, 309 P.3d 3.87 (2013). Issue: If a passenger’s injuries are in fact caused by the placement of a utility pole too close to a roadway, can the injuries be deemed too remote for purposes of legal causation? NO. Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that lost control and collided with a utility pole that was 4.47 feet from the edge of the roadway. The vehicle’s driver was under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff sued the driver as well as the utility company and Skagit County for negligence. The trial court granted the utility company and Skagit County’s summary judgment motion, finding that the negligent placement of the utility pole was not a legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a negligently placed utility pole could be the legal cause of a resulting injury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
    Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    April 15, 2014 —
    The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew. CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. 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

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    August 17, 2020 —
    The potential uses of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the construction industry continue to expand as new technologies enter the market and construction companies realize UAS can perform unique tasks at tremendous cost savings. The full technological capabilities of UAS are, however, limited by law for public safety reasons. UAS share airspace with traditional passenger, military and cargo aircraft, and are potential hazards for humans below. The risk of potential catastrophic collisions has led to a careful approach to the adoption of this technology. All U.S. airspace is exclusively regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and therefore, most drone regulation originates from this agency. Many states and localities have also enacted additional limits on UAS operations, and many of these nonfederal regulations are presently on unsure footing after a federal court ruling in Singer v. Newton invalidated a local regulation that conflicted with FAA regulations. What is clear is that all commercial UAS operations must comply with FAA regulations. Any drone operation conducted by any private company, even through use of an employee’s personal drone, would constitute commercial operation subject to regulation. Reprinted courtesy of Mark R. Berry, Peckar & Abramson and Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Berry may be contacted at mberry@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    November 08, 2017 —
    Contractors will soon find themselves on the frontline of wage disputes on projects if laborers working on behalf of their subcontractors or vendors are unpaid. On October 14, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1701, which will allow laborers to seek direct compensation from the general contractors on private projects, if their wages remain unpaid. The legislative mandate requires direct contractors—defined as contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with an owner—to assume liability for any debt incurred by a subcontractor, at any tier, for a wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the original contract between the general contractor and the owner. The California bill will apply to all private construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018. Previously, all laborers could maintain a mechanic’s lien claim against private property, without needing to serve a 20-day preliminary notice, but there was no statutory obligation on the “direct contractors” to reimburse the laborers their unpaid wages. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen and Kerri Sakaue Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Gruzen may be contacted at egruzen@pecklaw.com Ms. Sakaue may be contacted at ksakaue@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of