• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut roofing construction expertFairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield 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


    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    Is a Text a Writing?

    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

    Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting

    U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

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

    Firm Pays $8.4M to Settle Hurricane Restoration Contract Case

    David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (12/07/22) – Home Sales, EV Charging Infrastructure, and Office Occupancy

    Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms
    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

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    May 17, 2021 —
    Pursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory. In 2016, two students at Dartmouth College, Daniel Ro and Sebastian Lim, set up a charcoal grill on a platform outside of a fourth-floor window in the Morton Hall dormitory. The grill started a fire on the platform that ultimately spread to the roof of the dormitory. During fire suppression efforts, all four floors of the dormitory sustained significant water damage. Following the loss, the building’s insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $4,544,313.55 to the Trustees of Dartmouth College for the damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    October 11, 2017 —
    In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    January 21, 2015 —
    Continuing with our theme of Ready for 2015, this blog serves as a reminder of your rights and obligations under Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-1201-1211. As you may recall, Nebraska’s legislature amended the Prompt Pay Act in 2014. The most significant changes are highlighted below. Attorney’s Fees May be Recovered. The most significant change in the Prompt Pay Act allows contractors to recover damages if they pursue a claim under the Act. And, this is not reciprocal in that the defendant may not recover fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    July 19, 2017 —
    The federal district court found that under Montana law, water damage resulting from alleged faulty workmanship in repairing the insured's roof was covered. Leep v. Trinity Universal Ins Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86759 (D. Mont. June 6, 2017). The insured's property was damaged in a hail storm. The insured contracted with Sprauge to repair the hail damage. Sprauge tore off and replaced roof lining and shingles. Sprague replaced a vent cap and tubes, but did not replace any vent piping or vents. The contract between the insured and Sprauge provided it was the owners' responsibility to check the exhaust vents for all furnaces and water heaters after the roofing project was completed. Subsequent to the repairs, water was found dripping from a bathroom fan. Moisture was also found on the second story emanating from the ceiling. Finally, in the attic, the furnace vent piping was disconnected and the furnace exhaust was venting into the attic. 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

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    April 20, 2011 —

    After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.

    When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.

    The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    September 10, 2014 —
    In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    August 27, 2014 —
    According to Meredith Eilers of Bernstein Shur, writing in JDSupra Business Advisor, a Boston Appeals court “enforced an 'as is' provision in a purchase and sale agreement and concluded that the sale of a multimillion dollar oceanfront property in Bar Harbor was not accompanied by Maine’s implied warranty of habitability.” Eilers explained that “the first circuit concluded that the bargained-for ‘as is’ provision that was incorporated into the purchase and sale agreement—in exchange for a reduction in the purchase price—essentially waived any claims from the buyer regarding misrepresentations by the sellers.” This left “the buyer to incur the repair costs without the ability to recover those costs from the seller” and it demonstrated “that agreeing to such a clause when closing a real estate deal has real risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    December 16, 2019 —
    The appellate court found that the insurer's quote created an issue of fact on whether loss caused by a computer hacker would be covered. Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 355 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2019). The insureds, Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC ("LLC's") discovered that their bank accounts had been hacked and over $78,000 stolen. They submitted claims to their insurer, Cincinnati. Coverage was denied, and the LLCs filed suit. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati. The "Forgery or Alternation" coverage applied to losses resulting directly from the "'forgery' or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, order or directions to pay a sum of money." "Forgery" was defined as "the signing of the name of another person or organization with the intent to deceive." The LLCs did not cite any evidence that the hacker "signed" anything, let alone that they signed "the name of another person or organization." 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