Introduction:
Prefabrication and modular construction are reshaping the built environment, offering efficiency gains, faster schedules, and new opportunities. But with these gains come new risks — especially when modules are built in one state and installed in another. This post explores how Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington allocate risk in modular construction projects, and what medium-sized contractors need to watch for in their contracts.
🔍 1. The New Risk Landscape of Modular Construction
Unlike traditional builds, modular projects involve:
- Cross-jurisdictional transport of building systems
- Complex sequencing of factory production and site preparation
- New players (e.g., fabricators, shippers)
This complexity increases exposure to delay claims, defect disputes, and coordination failures.
⚖️ 2. Liability in CT, MA, and WA: A Comparative Look
Connecticut: Site GCs remain responsible even when modules are made out-of-state. Lien rights if fabrication occurs elsewhere.
Massachusetts: Chapter 93A can apply in B2B disputes if faulty fabrication causes significant damage.
Washington: Factory-assembled structure (FAS) regulations affect approvals and insurance.
🧾 3. Contract Structure Tips
- Define delivery risk: FOB factory vs. FOB site
- Include coordination clauses for factory/field handoffs
- Specify modular-specific warranties and documentation requirements
🧰 4. Project Controls That Matter
- Use modular schedule matrices
- Document fabrication with photos/videos
- Assign a modular coordinator even on mid-sized jobs
✅ Conclusion:
Modular builds promise efficiency — but with unique risks. Clear contracts, defined responsibilities, and proactive planning are essential for firms working across state lines.
📩 Need help reviewing modular construction contracts? Contact us — we support midsize firms across MA, CT, and WA.