• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildingsCambridge Massachusetts contractor expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts stucco 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

    As Climate Changes, 'Underwater Mortgage' May Take on New Meaning

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    Five Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2021

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

    Here's How Much You Can Make by Renting Out Your Home

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

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

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors
    Corporate Profile


    The Cambridge, Massachusetts 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 this considerable body of 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
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    April 17, 2019 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    October 01, 2013 —
    Forbes notes that residential builders and remodelers are one of the fastest-growing groups of privately held companies, but is that growth going to continue? Tim McPeak, an analyst at Sageworks, said, “aside from the strong sales growth, these companies have a relatively healthy 4.6% net profit margin.” Another analyst, Scott Cresswell of The Bonadio Group, said that his “clients who do multifamily are exponentially off the charts with new work. Cresswell also noted that firms in the Northeast are also experiences labor shortages, particularly with wood-frame construction, since, “there are not a lot of carpenters out there.” As a result of the new construction, some workers are more money from overtime. A further hike in interest rates may stop this growth. Mr. McPeak noted that “the expectation of everyone is we’re going to see rates rise.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    February 22, 2018 —
    It’s the rare construction firm that doesn’t cite people as its most important resource. And over the past two decades, that asset has become increasingly bilingual. Indeed, more than 27% of workers in construction are Hispanic or of Latino ethnicity, according to the most recent available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    March 01, 2012 —

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.

    Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.

    The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”

    Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”

    The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”

    Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”

    The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.

    Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.

    Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”

    The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    July 21, 2018 —
    In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk. Cost Risk School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at

    Savera Sandhu Joins Newmeyer Dillion As Partner

    March 23, 2020 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Savera Sandhu has joined the firm's Las Vegas office as a partner. Sandhu's addition formalizes Newmeyer Dillion's Healthcare practice group, which will draw on the firm's existing strengths and service offerings in the healthcare industry. "Newmeyer Dillion has been delivering services within the healthcare industry for many years, offering our premier legal services across a large range of sectors," said Office Managing Partner Nathan Owens. "We are excited to welcome Savera to our team, and believe her experience will help us to more broadly service the healthcare industry as we continue to work closely with companies in the Western region." The firm's Healthcare practice will comprise attorneys from the firm's business, litigation, employment law and real estate practice groups, who have extensive experience advising the healthcare industry in the areas of state and federal regulatory compliance, general business matters, medical malpractice and litigation defense. Newmeyer Dillion offers a range of key legal services to healthcare clients including entrepreneurs, technology companies, physicians, dentists and other healthcare professionals, suppliers, medical device manufacturers, hospitals, physician groups, out-patient and long-term care facilities. In addition to health care, Sandhu expands the firm's capabilities to service clients in the transportation, finance, entertainment and construction industries. For over a decade, Sandhu has worked intimately with the healthcare industry as their legal advocate, offering solution-oriented approaches to the business side of healthcare. As a partner with the firm, Sandhu counsels a wide range of corporate and healthcare clients on business and litigation matters throughout the state and nationwide. Embracing the firm's commitment to propel businesses forward, she combines a deep knowledge of commercial litigation with finely-honed experience as a trusted legal advisor to Fortune 100 companies. She also brings a broad perspective to her work with healthcare clients, based on her exceptional knowledge of corporate law, healthcare litigation, and state and federal regulatory matters. Sandhu believes that her effectiveness as legal counsel is enhanced by her strong commitment to both her profession and to the communities where she lives and works. Dedicated to the tenets of diversity and inclusion rooted in the firm's culture, she has held leadership roles as a long-time member of the Southern Nevada Association of Women Attorneys (SNAWA) and the South Asian Bar Association. Sandhu received her B.A. from the University of Washington and her J.D. from Seattle University School of Law. 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 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    August 17, 2020 —
    After mediation failed, a federal whistle blower lawsuit over alleged fraud against two contractors, which also targets sureties and a surety bond producer, is moving forward. The parties have asked a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C. to rule on outstanding motions in preparation for a possible trial. Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    October 27, 2016 —
    Thirty-two White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while fourteen received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP