BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architecture 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


    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    Someone Who Hires an Independent Contractor May Still Be Liable, But Not in This Case

    Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

    Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

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

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Brazil's Success at Hosting World Cup Bodes Well for Olympics

    Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

    Kahana Feld LLP Senior Attorney Rachael Marvin and Partner Dominic Donato Obtain Complete Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law Claims on Summary Judgment

    New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

    The Independent Tort Doctrine (And Its Importance)

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    Certain Private Projects Now Fall Under Prevailing Wage Laws. Is Yours One of Them?

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub
    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

    Viva La France! 2024 Summer Olympics Construction Features Sustainable Design, Including, Simply Not Building at All

    August 26, 2024 —
    If you’re like me and many others you’ve probably been watching the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, France. We were in Paris last year and we passed the construction site of the Aquatics Centre, one of only three new permanent facilities that was constructed for this year’s Olympics. On a side note, Parisian Uber drivers are some of the most aggressive drivers I’ve seen, replete with honking, hand gestures, and cursing at other drivers and pedestrians in, of course, French. Putain! In recent history, Olympic construction costs have skyrocketed, often vastly exceeding the planned budgets of the host cities, and, in recent years, has caused even some host city hopefuls to reconsider whether to even throwing their hats in the ring. The 2020/2021Summer Olympics in Tokyo, for example, had an original budget of $7.5 billion. The actual cost was over $13 billion and, depending on what beans you count, may have been over twice that! Paris seeks to change all of this. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    April 03, 2013 —
    Earlier this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an important opinion that impacts contractors and sureties alike. The decision should give contractors in Indiana pause before ceasing work while a dispute with the owner is pending. Sureties also have been placed on notice that strict compliance with the terms of their bonds is amongst their best defenses to claims made by owners and bond claimants. In Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana, 959 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the contractor (“Dave’s”) was the successful bidder on a public sanitary sewer and water main extension project. Dave's procured a performance bond from Liberty Mutual to guarantee its performance obligations to the owner (the "City"). After encountering what it deemed different subsurface conditions—and indeed after having been previously granted a change order to use excavated materials as backfill in light of the subsurface conditions on site—Dave’s placed the project engineer on notice of a differing site conditions claim. The total claim amounted to an 84% increase in the total contract price. With the claim, Dave's advised the project engineer it was ceasing further work until the project engineer provided direction. While the project engineer reviewed the claim, it reminded Dave's of its contractual obligation to "carry on the work and adhere to the progress schedule during all disputes or disagreements with the OWNER." A dispute immediately occurred regarding whether Dave's was required to continue to work while the project engineer resolved the differing site condition claim. After Dave's maintained its position that it was not required to continue to work, the project engineer placed it on notice of default and copied the letter to Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian M. Falcon
    Brian M. Falcon can be contacted at http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/contact.html

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    September 10, 2018 —
    The Second Circuit reversed the District Court's issuance of summary judgment to the insurer because a windstorm exclusion was deemed ambiguous. 7001 East 71st Street, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17334 (2nd Cir. June 26, 2018). A windstorm during Hurricane Sandy caused the roof of 7001 East 71st Street LLC (7001) to tear, allowing rainwater to seep in and damage 7001's "Covered Equipment" as defined by the policy. Continental denied coverage based upon the windstorm exclusion and the district court granted summary judgment to Continental. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    October 15, 2024 —
    … you must now pay. So said a California appellate court, affirming the trial court’s decision against a subcontractor suing for unpaid subcontract sums. Instead of being awarded those unpaid amounts, the subcontractor lost the case and was tagged with a $1.55 million attorney’s fees award and $270,000 costs award in favor of the defendants. What went wrong? California law requires a licensed contractor to maintain at all times proper workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The failure to maintain the coverage and have the certificate of coverage on file with the California Contractors State License Board results in “automatic and immediate suspension” of the contractor license. Retroactive reinstatement of the license may occur only if the contractor provides proof of the insurance within 90 days of the effective date of the insurance certificate – unless the contractor can show that failure to have the certificate on file was “due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    January 06, 2012 —

    A homeowners’ association in Lake Oswego, Oregon has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the developers of the luxury townhomes. The homeowners of Sunset Crossing are suing Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes over claims that construction defects have lead to water intrusion and structural damages. The townhomes were built in 2005.

    Andy Burns, the lawyer for Phillip and Patricia Gentelmann, the owners of both Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes, said the Gentelmanns were “taking these allegations very seriously.” The suit says that the construction violated state and local building codes and that the firms did not repair damage caused by water intrusion.

    Read the full story…

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

    Top Developments March 2024

    April 22, 2024 —
    CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    October 10, 2013 —
    The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    January 07, 2025 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – ASCE applauds Congress for passing the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2024, Congress's biennial authorization for new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects. WRDA 2024 authorizes 21 USACE water resources projects across 15 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, with a focus on waterway navigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration. This legislation will support vital port and inland waterways projects through provisions such as an adjustment of the cost share formula for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which helps pay for major rehabilitation and construction efforts along navigation channels, and an increase in the depth at which federal port and harbor projects can receive federal assistance for construction and maintenance. These provisions can help raise the ports (B-) and inland waterways (D+) grades reflected in ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, and we are thrilled to see WRDA 2024 prioritizing policies that will improve the nation's infrastructure systems. The latest agreement includes the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) through 2028, a top legislative priority for ASCE and a critical program needed to improve the "D" grade that dams received in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. The NDSP is the primary source of federal funding supporting state dam safety programs with inspection and monitoring activities, emergency preparedness, and staffing needs. The agreement also incorporates low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams. These small structures can have deadly consequences when unaccounted for because they produce dangerous, undetectable currents. Incorporating them into the National Inventory of Dams will increase awareness and lead to more safety precautions that could save lives. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of