• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut soil failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness windowsFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting engineers
    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


    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

    Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

    Brown Orders Mandatory Water Curbs for California Drought

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    Dave McLain included in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

    Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    What a Difference a Day Makes: Mississippi’s Discovery Rule

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

    You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Florida trigger

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    Historical Long-Tail Claims in California Subject to a Vertical Exhaustion Rule

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

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

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Can I Be Required to Mediate, Arbitrate or Litigate a California Construction Dispute in Some Other State?

    September 19, 2022 —
    It is not uncommon in the construction industry for an out-of-state general contractor to include a provision in a subcontract requiring a California subcontractor to resolve disputes outside the state of California, even though the work is to be performed within California. Fortunately, most California subcontractors are immune from this tactic. California law generally prohibits clauses requiring subcontractors to travel outside California to resolve construction disputes. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.42, [CCP 410.42 Link] renders “void and unenforceable,” any provision in a contract that “purports to require any dispute to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined outside this state,” so long as the contract is “between the contractor and a subcontractor with principal offices in the state, for the construction of a public or private work of improvement in this state.” Similarly, this law voids any similar contractual term that might prevent the California subcontractor from commencing an action, obtaining a judgment, or resolving its dispute in the courts of California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight’s Melvin Marcia for Its 2023 Northern California Rising Stars List

    July 16, 2023 —
    Congratulations to Melvin Marcia who was selected to the 2023 Northern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melvin F. Marcia, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Marcia may be contacted at mmarcia@hbblaw.com

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    May 19, 2014 —
    Following California law, the federal district court adopted horizontal allocation to settle a dispute among carriers for an insured sued for selling asbestos products. New England Fire Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Civil No. 3:12cv948 (D. Conn. April 8, 2014) [ruling here] The insured was a California-based corporation that sold plumbing supply products that contained asbestos. The insured was named in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits that were filed largely in California. The insured had primary and excess coverage for bodily injury claims. New England Fire Insurance issued an excess policy to the insured. The policy provided the insurer would be liable for the ultimate new loss in excess of the insureds underlying limit, which was defined as the amount equal to the limits of the underlying insurance, plus the applicable limits of any other underlying insurance collectible by the insured. 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

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    July 02, 2018 —
    Like many areas of federal labor law, there are different rules for construction industry employers. One major difference is in how employers become unionized. Typically, under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, a union becomes a collective bargaining agent of employees only after a majority of employees show support for union representation. In other words, the employees chose whether to be represented by a particular union. However, under Section 8(f) of the NLRA, construction industry employers can choose to become union without any showing of majority support by employees. In fact, construction industry employers don’t need to have any employees at all to sign a “8(f) agreement.” Thus, these agreements have become known as pre-hire agreements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    October 18, 2021 —
    Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million. The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    April 15, 2024 —
    The University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    September 24, 2013 —
    Despite the assurances of their engineering firm, the township of Old Bridge, New Jersey has yet to release the performance bond to the construction of Plaza Grande, a condominium complex for residents over 55. One resident summarized the problem for the Suburban, a newspaper for towns in the area. “Our major concern is a sinkhole near Building 4 that has come back several times.” D.R. Horton, the developer on the project, has dug out the sinkhole, then backfilled and compacted it. However , one member of the Old Bridge Township Council said that she noticed that the area was beginning to sink again. The council member, Mary Sohor, said that Horton “should’ve dug a little deeper and did a little more.” D.R. Horton said that the issues do not affect the safety of the residents and attribute them to seasonal wear and tear. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of