BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Massachusetts Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Cambridge Massachusetts

    No state license required for general contracting. Licensure required for plumbing and electrical trades. Companies selling home repair services must be registered with the state.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Builders Association of Central Massachusetts Inc
    Local # 2280
    51 Pullman Street
    Worcester, MA 01606

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10

    Massachusetts Home Builders Association
    Local # 2200
    700 Congress St Suite 200
    Quincy, MA 02169

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Greater Boston
    Local # 2220
    700 Congress St. Suite 202
    Quincy, MA 02169

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10

    North East Builders Assn of MA
    Local # 2255
    170 Main St Suite 205
    Tewksbury, MA 01876

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Western Mass
    Local # 2270
    240 Cadwell Dr
    Springfield, MA 01104

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10

    Bristol-Norfolk Home Builders Association
    Local # 2211
    65 Neponset Ave Ste 3
    Foxboro, MA 02035

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Cape Cod
    Local # 2230
    9 New Venture Dr #7
    South Dennis, MA 02660

    Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Cambridge Massachusetts


    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Pulling the Plug

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies

    ‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named a Best Law Firm in 2019 in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Environmental Law Violations: When you Should Hire a Lawyer

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Contractor Sentenced to Seven Years for Embezzling $3 Million

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    Foreign Entry into the United States Construction, Infrastructure and PPP Markets

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    General Contractor Intervening to Compel Arbitration Per the Subcontract

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    For Breach of Contract Claim, There Needs to be a Breach of a Contractual Duty

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 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 Cambridge'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
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    November 21, 2018 —
    On October 26, in the case of Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the common law “Witness Litigation Privilege” protects an expert witness in a Black Lung Benefits Act benefits proceeding against civil claims that allege a federal RICO violation and Maryland state law claims for fraud, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment attended the testimony of the expert witness. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    December 10, 2015 —
    The court found that stacking of interruption coverages was allowed based up the language of the policy. Lion Oil Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148261 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 2, 2015). The insured's oil line was ruptured, causing an interruption of crude oil delivery service. The insured held policies issued by National Union. The policies included multiple time element extensions. One extension related to Service Interruption which promised to insure against loss for:
    Service Interruption: electrical, steam, gas, water, sewer, incoming or outgoing voice, data, or video, or an other utility or service transmission lines and related plants, substations and equipment situated on or outside of the premises.
    Both parties agreed that the service interruption provision was unambiguous and that the court should give effect to the plain language of the policy. 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

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    January 02, 2024 —
    Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are projected to generate 44% of all power in the U.S. by 2050, which is increasing the need for battery energy storage systems (BESS).1 BESS are electrochemical devices that collect energy from a power grid, power plant or renewable source, hold it, and then discharge that energy later to provide electricity on demand. “A BESS does not itself create or produce energy, it is a storage system. The energy is produced by other means, including different types of renewable sources. Think of a cellphone – you charge it overnight and then it runs throughout the day off that battery power,” says Stacie Prescott, head of energy for middle and large commercial at The Hartford. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

    September 19, 2022 —
    In the case of Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poirier, 189 N.E.3d 306 (Mass. 2022), Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court concluded that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Chapter 93A (Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act) is not covered under an insured’s general liability insurance policy. Applying Massachusetts law, the Court found that a statutory award of attorney’s fees stemming from a bodily injury claim is not reasonably considered “damages because of bodily injury” or “costs taxed against the insured” so as to trigger general liability coverage. Facts of the Case A Servpro company (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Poirier) was hired to clean up a basement after a sewage spill. The owners of the home were injured by fumes from chemicals used in the cleanup and accordingly brought suit against the Poiriers and their Servpro business. In the lawsuit, the homeowners alleged negligence, breach of contract, and also a Chapter 93A claim, asserting breach of warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs waived the negligence and breach of contract claims and sought a bench trial on the Chapter 93A claims alone. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

    August 14, 2023 —
    In a ruling without explanation in response to an emergency appeal by the project developer, the U.S. Supreme Court on July 27 said work to complete the Mountain Valley gas pipeline can proceed. The decision follows an order earlier this month by the Richmond, Va., appeals court to halt restart of work on the much-litigated and delayed $6.6-billion, 303-mile natural gas pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia, after new lawsuits filed by opponent groups. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    September 24, 2014 —
    Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    June 21, 2017 —
    California Business & Professions Code section 7031(a) requires a party to have contractor’s license in order to maintain an action for compensation for services performed for which a contractor’s license is needed. In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B269186 (2017 WL 2544856) (Cal. Ct. App. June 13, 2017), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District considered the scope of this statute in denying, in part, Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc.’s (“Phoenix Pipeline”) appeal of a trial court ruling granting Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (“SpaceX”) demurrer to Phoenix Pipeline’s second amended complaint, without leave to amend. Phoenix Pipeline filed the underlying lawsuit for, among other claims, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from an agreement with SpaceX for Phoenix Pipeline to perform various plumbing, concrete removal and electrical services. Phoenix Pipeline alleged SpaceX paid for such services from 2010 to October 2013, but failed to pay Phoenix for services performed from October 2013 to August 2014, totaling just over $1,000,000. According to Phoenix Pipeline, this work was performed pursuant to a series of invoices, which constituted individual agreements between SpaceX and Phoenix Pipeline. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ACS Obtains Overwhelming Jury Trial Victory for General Contractor Client

    March 28, 2022 —
    ACS is pleased to share news of our recent $19.2 million victory for a general contractor client after a lengthy virtual jury trial involving the Nexus condominium project in downtown Seattle. On Tuesday March 22, 2022, ACS obtained a jury verdict awarding significant damages to our general contractor client and denying nearly all damages claimed against our client by the project owner. The 28-day jury trial commenced via Zoom on January 24 and involved testimony from more than two dozen witnesses on more than 185 discrete change issues and subcontractor pass-through claims as well as counterclaims from the owner for liquidated damages and other damages. Amazingly, after only two days of deliberating the jury reached a verdict resolving all claims overwhelmingly in favor of our general contractor client. Our client was awarded $19.5 million on its claims totaling $20.6 million and largely defeated the owner’s counterclaims of $4.3 million, with the jury awarding only $318,000 to the owner. This results in a net judgment of $19.2 million in favor of our client. The ACS team, along with the client, worked incredibly hard on this case. The team includes lawyers Scott Sleight, Saki Yamada, Kristina Southwell, Cam Sheldon and paralegals Christina Granquist, Cydney Fermstad, Auzree Hightower, Amy Capell, Samina Helsley and Bernadette Bresee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott R. Sleight, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Sleight may be contacted at scott.sleight@acslawyers.com