• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut construction expert witness consultantFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failure
    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

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

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

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    A Construction Stitch in Time

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Washington State Updates the Contractor Registration Statute

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    One Stat About Bathrooms Explains Why You Can’t Find a House

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    A Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Remodel Gets Pricey for Town

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 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

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    June 25, 2019 —
    Overview Experienced project delivery team members know too well the importance of timely and proper notice during a construction project. Ideally, contractual notice provisions, and any penalties for non-compliance, should apply equally to all of the contracting parties. For example, failure to comply with a notice provision concerning contract changes could bar a party from pursuing claims. And, untimely or improper notice can, likewise, prevent certain defenses to claims. Nowhere is notice more scrutinized than in the federal government contracting arena. Recently, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued two separate decisions involving the same construction project and the same parties and dealing with two specific aspects of notice in the federal government contracting process. The court’s decisions on the notice issues may, at first, appear to contradict each other or to favor one party over the other. A closer look at these two decisions reveals that notice requirements, in the context of federal government construction contracts, can come in multiple forms and notice is not a “one size fits all” proposition. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of G. Scott Walters, Smith Currie
    Mr. Walters may be contacted at

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    August 13, 2019 —
    In the past week or so mandatory arbitration has been all the rage. From those that argue that arbitration is becoming more burdensome than litigation, to my friend and fellow construction attorney Scott Wolfe who gives great advice on how to make arbitration worth it again. You can place me in the camp of those that think that mandatory arbitration clauses of the type typically found in contracts can add a layer of expense that can be unnecessary. However, if an arbitration clause is carefully drafted, and properly used, these clauses an be helpful in assuring that the streamlining effect for which arbitration was created actually occurs. Because the contract is king in Virginia, these provisions can essentially create the rule of civil procedure used to resolve any dispute relating to the project. Anything from the number and method of appointing the arbitrators, to the ability to use attorneys, to the time between notice and arbitration hearing and whether mediation is a requirement, to the documents and other pre-arbitration exchanges can and should be specifically outlined. The construction contract can also state who decides between court or arbitration. This can be one party or both. The possibilities are almost endless. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    December 11, 2018 —
    Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and insurance companies expect to provide” to construction industry professionals “unless the insured explicitly requests such coverage.” 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). In Hall, a stone masonry contractor was sued by its customer for causing over $350,000 in property damage resulting from “substandard and defective work” performed on the customer’s residence. The insurer sought a declaration that it owed neither a defense nor indemnity for those damages because, under Pennsylvania law, the policy did not cover property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Carroll may be contacted at

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    July 20, 2020 —
    On July 2, 2020, the California Legislature amended California Assembly Bill 1552 to help policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for their COVID-19 losses. The draft legislation states the need for the legislation to go into immediate effect in "order to protect the solvency of businesses that were forced to close their doors or limit business" due to the pandemic. If adopted, the proposed legislation would apply to all commercial insurance policies providing coverage for business interruption in effect on and after March 4, 2020. The proposed legislation would create rebuttable presumptions in favor of coverage for losses due to COVID-19 under Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority and Ingress and Egress policy provisions. For instance, the proposed legislation would create presumptions that COVID-19 was present at the insured premises and caused damage to the insured property. The draft legislation also specifies that the virus shall not be considered a pollutant unless the policy specifies otherwise. The ultimate impact of the draft legislation is unclear however, given that it specifically "does not affect the applicability of any policy provision, including any language addressing loss or damage caused by a virus." For additional information, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit Reprinted courtesy of James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion and Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Hultz may be contacted at Mr. Packer may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    May 10, 2012 —

    The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

    After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

    KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

    Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

    As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

    While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

    ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

    In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    November 06, 2018 —
    In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (No. E067505, filed 10/25/18), a California appeals court held that a property owner’s loss of the ability to use his property as a nightclub, based on revocation of a city’s conditional use permit (“CUP”), constituted covered property damage. In Sombrero, lessees operated a nightclub under the property owner’s conditional use permit from the City of Colton. A company hired to provide security negligently allowed admission to an armed patron, who shot and killed another patron. The City revoked the owner’s permit, and the owner was only able to negotiate the reinstatement of a limited permit, for use as a banquet hall only. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    November 27, 2013 —
    Among the important measures of the U.S. economy are housing starts and completions. The data on these are collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is itself part of the Commerce Department. Due to the October government shutdown, the Census Bureau was unable to complete timely collection of housing starts, among other data collected by the bureau. Estimates of housing permits issued during September and October will be released on November 26. However, the data on housing starts and completions will be delayed until December 18. This report will include September through November. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    September 09, 2011 —

    California safety officials are looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of a construction worker who fell from a roof in Tiburon, California. Another worker found Gabriel Vasquez unconscious at the site. Vasquez was later pronounced dead. The State Division of Occupational Safety and Health are trying to determine how Vasquez fell.

    Read the full story…

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