• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut stucco expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural 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


    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    UK Court Rules Against Bechtel in High-Speed Rail Contract Dispute

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

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

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

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

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    Capitol View-Corridor Restrictions Affect Massing of Austin’s Tallest Tower

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Timely Legal Trends and Developments for Construction

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    Edison Utility Accused of Igniting LA Fire in Lawsuits

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Meet BWBO’s 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    ¡AI Caramba!

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

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

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    SE 2050 Is In Quixotic Pursuit of Eliminating Embodied Carbon in Building Structures

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt
    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

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    April 20, 2017 —
    Georgia House Bill 238 authorizes the withdrawal of property from a conservation use covenant for purposes of developing a solar generation plant. Before the law was passed, subject to certain limited exceptions, properties under a conservation use covenant generally could not be developed without breaching the covenant. The new law permits the removal of a portion of the property to be used for solar development without breaching the covenant for the rest of the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    June 03, 2019 —
    In Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    July 16, 2014 —
    FIFA may reduce the number of stadiums used to host the 2018 World Cup in Russia on concern that their economic viability after the monthlong event ends. FIFA President Sepp Blatter said a day after Germany’s 1-0 win over Argentina in the final that a delegation from soccer’s governing body will meet Russian tournament organizers in September to discuss plans for the next edition. Blatter gave a mark of 9.25 out of 10 to an “exceptional” Brazil World Cup, which cost $11 billion to stage. The tournament is a difficult challenge for organizers, Blatter said, illustrated by construction delays at almost all of the 12 arenas used for the 64 games in Brazil. “The World Cup has taken such a dimension that the organization is hard work for the organizing country and also for FIFA,” Blatter told reporters at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where Germany claimed a fourth title and became the first European country to win the tournament in South America. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
    Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    December 21, 2020 —
    Earlier this year I filed a complaint in a court which I won’t identify other than to say that it wasn’t the San Francisco Superior Court. Immediately upon filing the complaint the Court gave notice of a trial date. As counsel for the party bringing the action, I appreciate this, as it eliminates the back and forth jostling that can sometimes occur when trying to get a trial date. Here’s the kicker though. While I appreciate getting a trial date straight out of the gate. The date I got was . . . wait for it . . . not until 2022! Those who litigate in California state courts know that the courts are understaffed and overworked. But you’ve got to give this un-named court credit for being upfront. Forget the “well, let’s see where this goes” niceties. Trial within a year? Fugetaboutit. Trial within a year and a half. Don’t even think about it. Trial within two years. It’s about as good as you’re going to get. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    February 18, 2015 —
    Two and a half years ago, on July 1, 2010, I opened my solo practice. At the time, I really had no insight into how big this change would be from a positive, customer service, perspective. When I made the decision to go solo with my construction law practice, I knew I wanted to have flexibility to serve my client base of contractors and subcontractors in Virginia. I started some flat rate billing and had the ability to take cases that were below the dollar value of those that my old firm was willing to take. I also knew that I would be a master of my own destiny for better or worse (and it has been much more of the former than the latter). What I did not realize is the impact that owning my own business would have on my perspective. I have always believed that, in most cases where construction disputes occur, mediation is a great option. However mediation only occurs with conflict. For any business, whether construction or otherwise, conflict creates expenses that were not likely to have been anticipated or built in to the budget. Litigation is not something that most businesses can, or should, build into their operating budgets. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    January 05, 2017 —
    The Sixth Circuit found that the surety did not act in bad faith when it settled the general contractor's claims against the State of Michigan over delays on a construction project. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20018 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016). Bailey, the general contractor, entered into a surety agreement under which Great American would issue surety bonds on behalf of Bailey in the construction of a kitchen at a State prison. Bailey, the principal, paid Great American (GAIC), the surety, to provide bonds guaranteeing contract performance to the State, the obligee or owner. GAIC provided a performance bond, guaranteeing performance of the contract work, and a payment bond, guaranteeing payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Under the agreement, Bailey would indemnify GAIC for all payments or other expenses GAIC incurred due on either bond, and would pay upon demand collateral in an amount to be determined by GAIC. In the event of an alleged breach by Bailey, the agreement assigned to GAIC all Bailey's rights under its contract with the State and well as all its claims against any party. Bailey never finalized completion, and GAIC reached agreement with the State for another contractor to complete the project. 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

    No Subrogation, Contribution Rights for Carrier Defending Construction Defect Claim

    December 23, 2023 —
    The Court held that the insurer defending the additional insured general contractor had no right to equitable subrogation or equitable contribution from a separate carrier who also insured the general contractor as an additional insured. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170293 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2023). Tanger Grand Rapids, LLC hired Rockford Construction Company to build the Tanger Outlet Center. Rockford subcontracted with Kamminga & Roodvoeis, Inc. (K&R) to work on the pavement for the outlet mall. Under the subcontract, K&R agreed to maintain primary commercial general liability insurance for itself, with Rockford as an additionial insured. K&R obtained a policy from Amerisure. For additional paving work, Rockford subcontracted with Michigan Paving & Materials, CP. The subcontract also required Michigan Paving to maintain primary coverage, with Rockford as an additional insured. Michigan Paving obtained a policy from Liberty Mutual. 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

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    March 19, 2024 —
    The Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis passed Senate Bill 360, effective April 13, 2023, which imposes significant changes to Florida’s statute of limitation (“SOL”) and statute of repose (“SOR”) periods prescribed in Florida Statute § 95.11. In short, the SOL and SOR periods will commence earlier and run earlier, which in effect shortens the time to bring a construction defect claim on both ends of the timeline.1 These changes will have positive impacts for general contractors who may save on insurance premiums with shorter completed operations tails. In other words, the timeframe within which contractors are at risk of being sued for construction-related errors is significantly reduced under the new version of the statute. Owners and developers, on the other hand, may feel that the increased pressure of uncovered construction defects necessitates the filing of lawsuits sooner than they might have otherwise filed. Collectively, all parties involved will certainly have to consider when and how to place their carriers on notice of claims or potential claims and, coupled with Florida’s sweeping changes to fee shifting statutes, insured parties may see more coverage denials which, in turn, could lead to more coverage actions.2 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com