BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting architect 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


    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

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

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Hunton’s Alice Weeks Selected to the Miami Dade Bar’s Circle of Excellence for Insurance Litigation

    Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

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

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Can Your Industry Benefit From Metaverse Technology?

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

    Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy

    Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

    Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Following My Own Advice
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    January 23, 2023 —
    The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the scope of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (the “implied warranty”) in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors that provides clear guidance of the law in this area, specifically on the issue of whether the implied warranty can be waived or disclaimed. It is also an interesting and helpful read for those who engage in new home residential sales and real estate transactions generally. The case: Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022). The takeaway holding: the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability cannot, under any circumstances, be disclaimed or waived. From a practice perspective, the foregoing is likely all one needs to ultimately know. However, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Timmer) and the dissent (authored by Justice King, and joined by Justice Bolick) are in these authors’ opinions worth a read for those who want a better understanding of the contours of how “public policy” plays into the analysis of the enforceability of contract terms, especially in the real estate context and even more particularly in connection with contracts for the sale of new homes. The careful analysis of both the majority opinion and the dissent provides an excellent history of the implied warranty, the public policy behind it, and its scope and application in the context of competing public policies, most notably the freedom to contract. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. Henry, Snell & Wilmer and Emily R. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com Ms. Parker may be contacted at eparker@swlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    October 01, 2014 —
    Metrostudy surveyed the Chicago, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis/St. Paul markets and found an increase in subdivisions—“[n]ot a re-hashing of existing communities or a re-configuring of existing developments, but new land, being newly developed,” according to Builder magazine. Builder reported that in 2010 only 383 new lots were delivered to the Chicago market, but in just the first six months of 2014, 1,500 new lots have been delivered. Furthermore, the Twin Cities had a total of 964 lots delivered in 2010. “In 2013, there were 3,683 new lot deliveries. Indianapolis has seen a total of 1,400 new lots delivered in the first six months of 2014, compared to just 650 through the first half of 2010.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Legislative Update

    July 19, 2017 —
    The marquee fight between Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Straus, otherwise known as the 85th Regular Legislative Session, concluded on May 29, 2017. While the political clash over the controversial “bathroom bill” will continue during the special legislative session, this article is intended to provide a brief summary of the construction-related bills that passed during the regular session and a few notable ones that did not pass. A special session has been called by Governor Abbott, but no construction-related bills were included on the agenda. What Passed? HB 2121 – Attorney’s fees for state breach of contract claims. A contractor who prevails on a state breach of contract claim pursuant to Chapter 2260 of the Government Code, that is also valued at less than $250,000.00, may recover attorney’s fees. By using the word “may”, the bill implies that the award of attorney’s fees will be at the discretion of the administrative law judge. This bill became law on June 15, 2017. HB 1463 – Right to cure ADA violations. A person with a disability may assert a claim for discrimination based on a violation of the building and architectural standards established in Chapter 469 of the Government Code. However, this bill requires the claimant to provide the respondent written notice at least sixty (60) days before filing an action for the violation and further gives the respondent an opportunity to cure the alleged violation within the sixty (60) day period. The obvious benefit of this bill is that it allows the respondent, e.g., the owner or potentially the contractor, an opportunity to remediate the violation without incurring litigation costs. This bill becomes effective law on September 1, 2017. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew S.C. Moore, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Justin (JD) D. Holzeauser, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moore may be contacted at mmoore@pecklaw.com Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    March 06, 2023 —
    The scope of work section in your construction contract should never be overlooked. In numerous instances, it is overlooked which leads to a dispute as to the precise nature of the scope of work. This dispute could be the result of an ambiguity in the scope of work section. Or it could be the result of an omission. Or it could be the result of a lack of clarification. Or it could be the result of not properly reviewing and vetting the scope of work section. This is a section—whether included in the body of your contract or attached as an exhibit—you absolutely, positively want clarity. Otherwise, you are potentially setting yourself up for a future dispute that could include (i) an additional work / change order dispute, (ii) an incomplete work dispute, or (iii) a failure to properly perform your work dispute. These are all disputes you want to avoid, and many times can avoid, by going through and negotiating the scope of work section to bring clarity to this section. Remember, clarity is a positive. Ambiguity or uncertainty is a negative. An example of such an avoidable scope of work dispute can be found in All Year Cooling and Heating, Inc. v. Burkett Properties, Inc., 2023 WL 2000991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Here, an air conditioning contractor was hired to install six new split air conditioning systems. The scope of work provided that there were currently “two split systems that are currently existing, working perfectly and are not to be replaced as part of this contract.” The property manager claimed the air conditioning contractor was required to bring these two existing split air conditioning systems up to code as the contract provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the contractor “will certify and shall ensure that all split systems in the building, upon completion of all the work, will be fully compliant with all codes and regulations and shall be responsible for any costs relates to the implementation and/or remediation of same.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Commercial Real Estate in 2023: A Snapshot

    January 17, 2023 —
    As we close out the last remaining weeks of 2022, all eyes look ahead to 2023. Below is a quick snapshot highlighting three trends and predictions that may continue to shape the commercial real estate landscape in 2023.
    1. Office space and the digital economy present attractive investment opportunities and potential. Even with all of the chatter about office vacancies during the last three years, according to Moody’s Analytics, “it’s important to note that none of the regions across the U.S. have seen office vacancy rates dip below their pre-pandemic Q4 2019 levels.” This might be due to creative and reimagined office spaces as the return to office continues. The hybrid work format and flexibility in spaces will continue in 2023.
    2. Data analytics and Proptech will continue to play a larger role, allowing property owners and tenants to collaborate to provide more efficiency, whether to achieve sustainability goals or leverage technology like immersive experiences to entice tenants to new spaces. An increase in demand for technology to solve issues will most likely continue in commercial real estate.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury
    Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    July 06, 2011 —

    The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June on the case of Nevins v. Toll in which they reversed an earlier decision and remanded the case to a lower court for retrial. At issue in the case was the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, J. Anthony Dowling. In depositions, Mr. Dowling said that his estimates for repair were based on a “gut feeling.” Dowling said he had “very little” experience in cost estimates for single-family homes. The defendants sought to bar Dowling’s testimony which was granted by the judge. Without an expert, Ms. Nevin’s case was dismissed.

    Describing Dowling’s report as “far from a model of how an expert’s opinion in a construction case should be presented,” the court noted that Dowling is not a professional expert witness. However, the court did note that Dowling is a professional cost estimator. Despite Mr. Dowling using his “gut feeling” to construct his estimate, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that whether his estimate is convincing is “a question for the jury.”

    Read the court’s opinion…

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

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    December 21, 2016 —
    The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of the insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby rejecting the insureds' negligence per se claim for failure to pay benefits. Braun-Salinas v. Am Family Ins. Group, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016). The insureds argued that Oregon recognized a negligence per se claim based on an insurer's failure to pay benefits in violation of the statutory standard under state law. Oregon appellate courts, however, only allowed a negligence per se claim only where a negligence claim otherwise existed. The Oregon courts had previously rejected a statutory theory, holding that a violation of the statute did not give rise to a tort action. 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

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    May 24, 2011 —

    Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

    Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

    “Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

    In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

    Read the court’s decision

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