BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts stucco expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction forensic expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    William Doerler Recognized by JD Supra 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    To Catch a Thief

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Is the Manhattan Bank of America Tower a Green Success or Failure?

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof
    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. Drawing 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

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders

    June 15, 2017 —

    The homebuilding and construction industries in California are at a record high in 2017 according to the National Homebuilders Association. While there is finally prosperity and growth for builders, developers and contractors after suffering from the recession of 2008, there is also a growth in construction defect claims. As with every industry and especially with construction, there are several risk prevention methods that can help curb this litigation.

    Time Frames for Pursuing Construction Defect Claims

    It is important to know and understand the time frames for which construction defect claims can be pursued by homeowners. There is a hard cut-off for construction defect litigation in California known as the Statute of Repose of 10 years. California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §337.15 provides a statute of repose that bars actions to recover damages for construction defects more than 10 years after substantial completion of the work of improvement. This provision is limited to property damage claims and does not extend to personal injuries (See, Geertz v. Ausonio, 4 Cal.App.4th 1363 (1992) and willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment claims. (See, Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp., 128 Cal.App. 4th 1278 (2005).

    There are also interim statutes of limitations for “patent” and “latent” defects discovered at the home also from the date of substantial completion. CCP §337.1(e) provides for a four year window to bring suit for deficiencies that are apparent by reasonable inspection (patent deficiencies). CCP §337.15(b) provides for deficiencies that are not apparent by reasonable inspection or hidden defects that require invasive testing to become apparent (latent deficiencies). A latent defect can become patent after it “manifests itself” (i.e. becomes observant – for example a roof leak) for which the four year window from the date of discovery would become the applicable statute of limitations.

    The discovery rule effectively acts to toll the statute of limitation period on construction defect claims until they become reasonably apparent. (See, Regents of the University of CA v.Harford Accident & Indemnity, Co., 21 Cal.3d 624, 630 (1978). This is similar to a breach of contract claim, also a four year statute of limitation. Finally, the California Right to Repair Statute (SB800) – Civil Code §§895, et seq. specifically Civil Code §896 sets forth the “Functionality Standards” or a list of actionable defect items, including items affecting the component’s “useful life” and a catch-all provision for all items not expressed listed as defects in the statute. (Civil Code §897). The majority of the defects alleged have a 10 year statute of limitations. However, there are shortened statute of limitations for the following items:

    Functionality StandardsStatute of Limitations
    Noise Transmission 1 year from original occupancy of adjacent unit
    Irrigation 1 year from close of escrow
    Landscaping Systems & Wood Posts (untreated) 2 years from close of escrow
    Electrical systems, pluming/sewer systems, steel fences (untreated), flatwork cracks 4 years from close of escrow
    Paint/Stains 5 years from close of escrow
    All other functionality standards (Civil Code §941(a)) 10 years after substantial completion(date of recordation of valid NOC)

    Preventative Measures to Curb Construction Defect Litigation

    Once the builder knows the time frames for construction defect claims, the following are some preventive measures to limit construction defect claims. As a reminder, homeowners are less likely to bring construction defect action if they feel that the builders are taking care of them.

    1. Communicate With Homeowners Prior to Claims

    It is imperative to communicate with the homeowners throughout the ten years statute of repose period. For example, most builders provide a limited warranty to the homeowners at the time of purchase. Homeowners are generally confused as to the length of the warranty and what the warranty covers. A practical tip to help curb construction defect claims is for the builder to send postcards or letters to the homeowners at the six month, one year and nine-year marks to advise the homeowner of: (1) the existence of the warranty and what is covered at each time frame; (2) the maintenance obligations of the homeowner at the various time frames; and (3) the fact that the home is approaching the ten-year mark. Most builders would rather deal directly with the homeowners through customer service than defend a construction defect litigation action where the costs to defend the claim will vastly exceed the cost to address the individual homeowner issues. The more the builder communicates with the homeowner in advance, the less likely it is that the homeowner engages in litigation against the builder.

    2. Timely Response to Homeowner Claims

    During the purchase process, provide the homeowners instructions on how to send in a customer service or warranty requests. Provide multiple methods for notification to the builder by the homeowner when issues arise in their home (fax, email, website forms, etc.). The builder should provide a timely response – within 48 hours of the notice if possible. The homeowner wants to receive some notification from the builder that they received their request and, at the very least, will investigate the claim. Even if it is determined to be a maintenance item or homeowner caused damage, the homeowner should receive: (1) an acknowledgement of the claim; (2) an investigation report of the issue; and (3) an action plan or conclusion statement – this can be a declination of repairs with an explanation as to the cause not being the result of original construction. Sometimes even sending a customer service representative to the home to listen to the homeowner claims and explaining that there are not repairs required is sufficient to satisfy the homeowner. The goal is to make sure the homeowner’s claims are acknowledged and that the builder is standing behind its product. In my experience, the fact that the builder failed to respond in a timely fashion to the homeowner is a significant motivating factor as to why the homeowner elected to enter formal litigation against the builder.

    3. Be Proactive When Litigation Ensues Despite the fact that the homeowner has engaged an attorney and joined a construction defect action, the builder is not precluded from continuing to communicate with its homeowners. Several builders send letters to the non-plaintiff homeowners reminding them to contact the builder should they have issues at their homes rather than join the ongoing construction defect action. Under the law, clients can always talk to clients even if they are represented by counsel. While the attorneys for the builders cannot speak to the represented construction defect homeowners, the builder can communicate directly with its homeowners offering to honor its warranty and customer service procedures in lieu of the homeowner proceeding with the litigation. Both of these builder attempts to communicate with homeowners post-litigation have a dual effect – some homeowners elect to contact the builder to effectupate repairs and drop the litigation; while others elect to continue with the litigation. So proceed cautiously in this regard.

    It is noted, there are many motivating factors for homeowners to bring a lawsuit against homebuilders that have nothing to do with the construction practices or customer service and are merely economically driven. However, these small steps in addition to providing solid construction practices should help curb construction defect litigation by homeowners.

    Jason Daniel Feld is a founding partner of Kahana & Feld LLP, an AV Preeminent boutique litigation firm in Orange County specializing in construction defect, insurance defense, employment and general business litigation matters. The firm was founded with the goal of providing high-quality legal services at fair and reasonable rates. The firm believes that what defines attorneys is not their billing rates, but their record of success, which speaks for itself. For more information, please visit: www.kahanafeld.com.

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

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    May 30, 2018 —
    ABC WXYZ Local News reported that a balcony collapsed at the Anthoes Garden Apartments in Detroit, Michigan. Two people were witnessed falling from the upper walkway through the second and third floors, landing on the cement, sidewalk below. Neighbors pulled the thirty-something woman out of the debris, but the sixty-something man remained trapped under cement chunks and told the rescuers that he could not breathe. The neighbors used car jacks to raise the cement blocks to relieve pressure while waiting for help to arrive. Firefighters rescued residents from the apartments. The fire marshall condemned the building. However, according to ABC News, "people who live in apartments nearby are afraid to leave because of the walkway's instability." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    March 07, 2014 —
    According to WFAA News, many residents of Allen, Texas were upset when their tax dollars were spent on a new high school football stadium, and they are angry now that alleged construction defects may cause the stadium to close, and perhaps not even reopen again this fall. There “is a disproportionately large amount of our tax dollars that goes just to Allen ISD," Rachel Palmer, an Allen resident, told WFAA News. However, Ben Pogue, president of Pogue Construction, the stadium’s general contractor called the situation “a road bump.” WPAA News also interviewed Dr. Simon Chao of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington: "Cracking is fairly common in concrete," Chao stated. "The problem is the damage water may cause by getting in the cracks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    August 13, 2019 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    June 30, 2014 —
    The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration has approved an environmental review needed to begin building a portion of a $68 billion California high-speed rail line that has been mired in lawsuits. The agency, part of the Transportation Department, said in a release that it cleared a 114-mile (183-kilometer) stretch of the project in the Central Valley. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has been blocked from selling bonds to begin construction of the first U.S. bullet train until a court decides whether details of the financing were adequately disclosed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Bloomberg
    Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    November 27, 2013 —
    A failure in the installation of a 13-ton concrete panel in Milwaukee County lead to the death of a 15-year-old boy in 201; two others were also injured. A lawsuit over this has concluded with the contractor, Advance Cast Stone, found culpable due to their concealing that the panel was not installed as prescribed. The incident happened at a parking garage operated by the county. Advanced Cast Stone made the claim that the method they used to secure the panel had been approved by other in the project. The jury awarded $6.3 million to the estate of Jared Kellner, $1.5 million each to the young man who was injured, Eric Wosniki, and his parents. The county was also awarded $6 million for lost revenue in the parking garage and for repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

    In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

    Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

    The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

    The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

    The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    August 26, 2015 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes new partner Robert S. Rucci. Mr. Rucci joins Haight’s San Diego office in the Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. For 25 years, Mr. Rucci has specialized in defending design professionals, businesses and their employees in addition to representing clients against declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith litigation. During his career, he has tried 60 cases to defense verdict and successfully resolved countless matters via mediation, arbitration and settlement conference. His extensive litigation experience is invaluable to our clients. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 402 West Broadway Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Rucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Rucci may be contacted at rrucci@hbblaw.com