BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance 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


    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year

    Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Contractor Sentenced to Seven Years for Embezzling $3 Million

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    What Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?

    Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

    Structural Health Check-Ups Needed but Are Too Infrequent

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead
    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

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    September 03, 2015 —
    Zlien on their Construction Payment Blog explained how to read a lien waiver. According to Zlien, “Lien waivers are meant to function as a sort of receipt – if a party is paid a certain amount that party waives his or her right to claim a lien for that amount. “ The blog post breaks down the types of lien waivers, including Conditional Waivers, Unconditional Waivers, Final Payment, and Progress Payment. Once the type of waiver has been identified, Zlien suggests checking the length: “Because the party signing the lien waiver may feel obligated to sign whatever document is presented in order to get paid, unscrupulous or oblivious parties may attempt to use the lien waiver as a legal positioning tool and cram all sorts of other language into the lien waiver that really has no legitimate right or reason to be there.” Zlien recommends that if the document is long or confusing to consult an attorney. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

    August 10, 2020 —
    Worldwide closures as a result of COVID-19 have resulted in an extreme surge in video conferencing use. This spike in use has also resulted in increased concern about the privacy of these video conferencing applications, including a class action lawsuit against one of the applications: Zoom. Because of this, we took a deeper look into the privacy policies of six prominent video conferencing applications and created a chart showing each video conferencing application's compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Reviewing these materials will provide an awareness of the deficiencies within the Privacy Policies, which can help you become more well-informed about your own rights, and more knowledgeable about any deficiencies in your own business' privacy policy. If these widely-used and widely-known companies can have deficiencies, it is an important way to re-examine and fix these issues in your own. To determine this, we reviewed the CCPA's twenty requirements for compliance, including: (1) the existence of a privacy policy, (2) required disclosures of information regarding the existence of rights under the CCPA, (3) instructions on how to exercise rights, and (4) providing contact information. Here are the top 5 discoveries from our review: 1) No videoconferencing applications address authorized agents. This makes sense, as the treatment of authorized agents were just laid out in the recently finalized regulations. This is a reminder to businesses to utilize these regulations when setting up compliance measures to ensure there is no risk in missing out on requirements like this, which will still be required and enforced by the Attorney General. 2) Three platforms (WebEx, Skype, and Teams) have separate tabs and pages detailing privacy policies, and don't necessarily have a single unified and simple policy. Because of the accessibility requirements, this means that the privacy policy may not be readily accessible on the business's website, and may open companies to arguments that the entirety of their policy is non-compliant if key portions are hidden or otherwise inaccessible. Therefore to eliminate this concern, keep your policy unified, simple and in one location for ease of viewing. 3) None of the platforms address information relating to minors under the age of 16, which is notable as some of these platforms have been used for online education. The final regulations outline different treatment for minors from ages 13 to 16, and for minors under the age of 13. As a result, privacy policies focused on compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) may be insufficient as it only applies to those under 13 years old. 4) While all of the platforms state that no sale of information occurs, two platforms (Zoom and GoToMeeting) go above and beyond to explain the right to opt-out of sales. This is especially great as the CCPA permits that no notice needs to be given if no sale occurs. By taking this extra step, Zoom and GoToMeeting explain to their users that they have additional rights, which may be necessary as these platforms are also used by other entities, which may collect or otherwise use information collected from a videoconference meeting. 5) Only one platform (Wire) does not give instructions on how to delete information. The CCPA regulations still require that information regarding instructions on how to delete information be given. The lack of instructions does not relieve Wire from its obligations, and similarly situated businesses may find themselves in a position where they will have to comply with a consumer request, in any form, as the regulations require that a business either comply, or list the proper instructions on how to make the request. Download the Full Breakdown To learn more about our findings and how the video conferencing companies stacked up against the CCPA, visit: https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/ccpa-privacy-policy-compliance-videoconferencing-platforms/. We hope this serves as a reminder to everyone to read the privacy platforms for the services you use and update your company's privacy policies to comply with the most recent regulations, as none of these services are currently in complete compliance, and it is only a matter of time before enforcement begins. Shaia Araghi is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber-related matters, including compliance and prevention that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Shaia can help, contact her at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com. Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

    October 01, 2013 —
    Electric cars are still fairly rare, but if you buy a new home in Palo Alto, you’ll have a place to charge it. The Palo Alto City Council has been enthusiastic about a measure that would require new homes to come wired for car chargers. The hope of the council is that the measure will make owning an electric car “convenient, easy and economical.” If added to the construction process, the wiring adds about $200 to the cost of the home, far less than the cost of adding it to an existing home. In addition to considering changes in the building code, the city also considered measures that would allow for the operation of public charging stations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    December 04, 2013 —
    The Los Angeles law firm Girardi Keese has filed a lawsuit representing 10,000 homeowners in Hawaii. The class action suit claims that construction defects have left the homes unable to withstand the island’s winds. Graham B. LippSmith, who represents the homeowners said that “we’re seeing some homes where the straps have cracked all the way through, so there’s nothing holding the frame to the foundation.” Mr. LippSmith said that the developer should have used anchor bolts instead of hurricane straps, but “that would have cost more money.” Mr. LippSmith says that his goal is to get the homes fixed. “It doesn’t do any good to give someone $50,000 and tell them go have their home fixed when what the community needs is to be made safe for the residents.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute

    October 26, 2017 —
    On Tuesday, October 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a 17-year-old battle over whether Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) will have to help cover the costs of asbestos-related injury suits that were filed against it after insurers began to universally exclude coverage for asbestos-related liabilities. The Court considered the arguments made by two excess insurers, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (St. Paul) and parent Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (Travelers), that the Court should overturn a state appellate court’s ruling that Honeywell does not have to contribute to these costs. During the course of this case, Honeywell has sought coverage under more than 300 different policies, ultimately settling with all insurers except St. Paul and Travelers, who had issued a total of 10 excess policies to Honeywell’s predecessor, Bendix Corp. (Bendix) between 1968 and 1983. Honeywell has only sought coverage for claims made by individuals who allege that they were first exposed to asbestos prior to 1987. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

    Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

    March 28, 2022 —
    There’s certain things in life you shouldn’t mix. Like drinking and driving. Bleach and ammonia. Triple dog dares and frozen poles. And angry lawyers and litigation. In Spahn v. Richards, Case No. A159495 (November 30, 2021), angry lawyer Jeffrey Spahn sued general contractor Dan Richards claiming that Richards orally agreed to build Spahn’s million dollar plus house for $515,000. Not only did Spahn not recover anything from Richards, he ended up owing Richards $239,171 in attorney’s fees and costs, after he denied a request for admission asking that he admit that there was no oral contract. The Spahn Case In 2017, Spahn filed suit against Richards for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. According to Spahn, he met Richards in June 2015 and the two reached an agreement whereby Richards agreed to demolish Spahn’s house for $12,500 and build a new one for $515,000. Further according to Spahn, Richards agreed to this “fixed price” “oral contract” in June 2015, and then, on July 1, 2015, Richards “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete construction by May 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    August 13, 2014 —
    A federal judge dismissed an environmental suit against Lockheed Martin, finding that contamination levels on the plaintiffs’ Moorestown, New Jersey properties were not high enough to pose a health threat, according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Two owners who live across the street from the plant had “sued under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act and various state statutes.” However, “while the suit was pending, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection raised the threshold for concentration levels of substances such as TCE and PCE to warrant additional testing.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    November 17, 2016 —
    In Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted. The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation Blog
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com