• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut ada design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut engineering consultantFairfield Connecticut consulting architect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut civil engineer expert witnessFairfield Connecticut defective construction expertFairfield Connecticut building envelope 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

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    CSLB Reminds California Public Works Contractors to Renew Their Public Works Registration

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Colorado “occurrence”

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”

    Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?
    Corporate Profile


    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    October 02, 2018 —
    The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), along with the Los Angeles office of Stantec, recently began work on the $109-million Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station Improvement Project in Los Angeles. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    March 29, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

    December 31, 2014 —
    Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko of Haight Brown & Bonesteel analyzed the Beacon decision, and discussed how it affects developers and general contractors: “On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    January 06, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the insurer that there was no coverage for a collapse under the policy. S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32569 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). S.O. Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc ("Larios") owned a building in Miami Beach. Sometime between march 4, 2012 and April 10, 2013, Larios discovered that parts of the first three floors of its building had caved in to varying degrees. The primary cause of the collapse was a wooden support beam that had severely rotted. Larios found a broken pipe that was gushing water onto the beam, causing deterioration. Larios was forced to evacuate the building until the damage was repaired. Larios submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great American. The policy required that a collapse an "abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building" to be covered. Before a coverage decision was made, Larios sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Great American's motion and denied Larios' motion. 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

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    February 05, 2015 —
    In a dispute over the property policy's requirement that lost or damaged property be repaired or replaced, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the policy language called for replacement of undamaged siding panels to obtain a color match. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Minn. LEXIS 661 (Minn. Dec. 17, 2014). During a hail storm, all 20 of Cedar Bluff's buildings sustained some damage. The roofs on all of the buildings needed to be replaced, and at least one siding panel on each building sustained damage. Eleven of the 20 buildings had three or fewer damaged panels. At the time of the hail storm, the siding was approximately 11 years old, and the color of the panels had faded. Replacement panels were available, but not in the same color. Cedar Bluff submitted a claim under its business owners' policy to American Family. The policy obligated the insurer to pay for "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Property" was broadly defined in the policy to include buildings at the premises. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA

    October 07, 2016 —
    In an opinion overturning a $17,000,000 bridge painting contract for the Commodore Barry Bridge, a United States Federal Judge called the procurement practices of the Delaware River Port Authority “a black box . . . obscure and unexplained, and lacking any indicia of transparency or the hallmarks of a deliberative process.” The case involved lead paint remediation and repainting of the Pennsylvania span of the Commodore Barry. Seven contractors submitted bids. Alpha Painting was the apparent low bidder. Corcon was the second low bidder. Corcon was also the contractor that was perform the painting work on the New Jersey span of the bridge. Like most agencies engaged in public bidding, the DRPA requires contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.

    Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.

    Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”

    The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”

    During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”

    Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    July 23, 2014 —
    The Fifth Circuit determined that the Umbrella policies took effect once the primary insurance was exhausted by claims not covered by the Umbrella policies. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. W&T Offshore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11775 (5th Cir. June 23, 2014). W&T had primary and Umbrella/Excess coverage to protect its offshore oil rigs from hurricane damage. The primary policies covered property damage and third party claims. The Umbrella policies only covered third-party claims. All policies covered Removal of Debris (ROD). In September 2008, Hurricane Ike caused damage to 150 offshore platforms in which W&T had an interest. W&T submitted over $150 million in claims for property damage to the primary carriers. The primary policies had a $10 million self-insured retention (SIR). The primary policies covered $150 million in coverage over the $10 million SIR. Anticipating that W&T would submit all of its ROD claims, which were estimated to exceed $50 million, the Umbrella carriers filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at