BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction forensic expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts defective construction expertCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction 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


    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    What Made the Savannah Harbor Upgrade So Complicated?

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    Does the Recording of a Mechanic’s Lien Memorandum by Itself Constitute Process? Read to Find Out

    Slow Down?

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Fee Simple!

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/6/24) – Construction Tech Deals Surge, Senators Reintroduce Housing Bill, and Nonresidential Spending Drops

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

    City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect
    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

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    December 01, 2017 —
    A California Court of Appeal has confirmed that additional insured endorsements (“AIE”) granting coverage for liability arising out of a named insured’s “ongoing operations,” and in effect during those “ongoing operations,” do not require that the liability arise while the named insured is performing work. McMillin Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal. Ct. App., November 14, 2017, Case No. D069814. In McMillin, a construction defect insurance coverage action, Lexington Insurance Company argued that McMillin had no liability to homeowners until after their homes closed escrow; thus, McMillin did not face liability while the named insureds’ work was ongoing. The Court of Appeal rejected Lexington’s argument, finding that the “ongoing operations” AIEs provide only that McMillin’s liability “be ‘linked’ through a ‘minimal causal connection or incidental relationship’ with [the named insureds’] ongoing operations.” (internal citations omitted). The Court reasoned that Lexington had not established that all of the damage in the underlying action occurred after the named insureds completed their work, thus Lexington had not established as a matter of law that there was no potential for coverage for McMillin under the policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Brantley, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Brantley may be contacted at kcb@paynefears.com

    Claim for Collapse After Demolition of Building Fails

    January 09, 2023 —
    After several city citations and the eventual demolition of the insureds' apartment building, their claim for coverage based on collapse was unsuccessful. Barker v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202069 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2022). The plaintiffs purchased a three-story multi-family apartment building on March 9, 2009. Prior to the purchase, steel beams were installed in the basement along the east and south walls. By 2013, the south and east walls were leaning.  On March 13, 2017, the city building inspector observed "the foundation failing in several areas and deflection in the south wall." The building inspector issued a citation for a pubic nuisance in violation of the City Code. This was followed by several more citations against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' inspector reported the basement walls were experiencing "extensive lateral deflections primarily due to the inadequate design of the basement walls."  Plaintiffs understood the issues to be "cosmetic.'" They had no work done on the property besides aesthetic upgrades. After additional citations were entered, the building was ordered demolished. 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

    A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

    March 28, 2022 —
    Some of the hot topics dominating the construction industry today include the impacts of COVID-19, government testing and vaccine mandates, cyber security, and the evolving role of general counsel. This article provides a summary review of those topics. a. The Economic Impact of COVID-19 for Project Owners Project owners have been placed in a precarious position because courts across the country have almost unanimously ruled that insurance carriers are not liable for COVID-19-related business income losses.1 While project owners have sought alternative ways to mitigate losses resulting from COVID-19, many of these efforts have been negated by the exponential increase in materials costs.2 Thus, it remains unclear what, if any, solutions project owners have at their disposal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. McDonald may be contacted at MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    February 10, 2014 —
    According to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.” Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.” KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    May 12, 2016 —
    The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the insurer had no coverage obligations for bodily injury occurring after the policy had been canceled. Hoesen v. Lloyd's of London, 2016 R.I. LEXIS 41 (R.I. March 24, 2016). The plaintiff, Mark Van Hoesen, was seriously injured on July 23, 2012, when he fell from a deck of his house. He sued his contractor, Brian Leonard, alleging that the deck had been negligently constructed. Lloyd's, Leonard's insurer, was later named as a defendant. Lloyd's admitted it issued the policy to Leonard, but it was cancelled on August 29, 2007. Even if it had not been canceled, the policy had expired long before the injuries alleged in plaintiff's complaint occurred. 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

    Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint

    August 20, 2014 —
    In Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (No. E056566, filed 8/14/2014), The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held a demurrer was timely filed in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 471.5, despite being filed after the 10-day filing period prescribed in California Rule of Court 3.1320(j). This case appears to settle the conflict that existed between the CCP and the Rules of Court as to the timing of demurrers following amendments to Complaints. Prior to this case, the validity of Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) was unclear as it arguably conflicted with CCP Section 471.5, which requires defendants to “answer” an amended complaint within 30 days after service. At the same time, it was not clear that CCP Section 471.5 applied to amendments after a demurrer had been sustained, and it was even more unclear whether the statutory 30-day period to “answer” an amended complaint foreclosed the shorter 10-day period prescribed under Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) for a demurrer or motion to strike. On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and others. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dr. Pepper demurred to the FAC on various grounds. On January 5, 2012, the trial court sustained the demurrer in part, and overruled it in part. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend the FAC. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    October 15, 2014 —
    Some time ago, I wrote about union THUGS (The Helpful Union Guys) that tormented merit shops to force contractors to use union labor on projects. The THUGS set fire to equipment, beat contractors with baseball bats, and picketed apartment complexes where contractors lived. Recently two of the ten union members plead guilty to arson-related charges, including two counts of maliciously damaging property by means of fire, extortion, and RICO conspiracy charges. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    April 13, 2017 —
    In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of