BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness roofingCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting engineersCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!

    Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Supreme Court Opens Door for Challenges to Older Federal Regulations

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    New Home Permits Surge in Wisconsin

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    No Signature, No Problem: Texas Court Holds Contractual Subrogation Waiver Still Enforceable

    Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition

    Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19

    Illinois Court Determines Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

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

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Can Your Employee File a Personal Injury Claim if They’re Injured at Work?

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

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

    U.S. Army Corps Announces Regulatory Program “Modernization” Plan

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License
    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

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    September 09, 2011 —

    The California State License Board charged sixteen people in the Fresno area with accepting contracting jobs without licenses. The Statewide Investigative Fraud Team of the CSLB set up a sting operation at a home in Clovis, California seeking bids on tree service, painting, and general contracting services. Those who bid for jobs at more than $500 are required under California law to be licensed. Unlicensed contractors can only work on jobs with a cost to the homeowner of less than $500 and must inform the homeowner that they are not licensed.

    In addition to citing contractors for not possessing appropriate licenses, the CSLB also cited contractors for failure to carry workers compensation insurance and illegal advertising. Further, California law limits down payments to the lesser of ten percent or $1,000. Two contractors were cited for requesting excessive down payments.

    One contractor, an unlicensed tree service contractor, had been cited previously in a sting operation. He failed to show up for his court date.

    Read the full story…

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

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    September 09, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim. The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:
    In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.
    The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Raney may be contacted at craney@grsm.com

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    April 10, 2019 —
    As all insurance coverage attorneys know, how courts interpret certain words and phrases in insurance policies is significant since one word can make the difference between a claim being covered or not. On January 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in the Ferro v. Weiner1 decision, clarified the jurisprudence on the meaning of “living in the same household” in the context of homeowners policies. Background Facts Ms. Enid Weiner owned a lakeside home which was insured under a homeowners policy through Intact Insurance Company (the “Intact Policy”). The Policy listed only Enid Weiner as the Named Insured, but provided coverage to her relatives “while living in the same household” for liability for unintentional bodily injury arising from an insured’s “personal actions anywhere in the world.” Although the lake house was used as a vacation home when Ms. Weiner’s children were small, it was her primary residence for about ten years before she moved into a nursing home. While she never permanently moved back, her three grown children and their families used the house as a cottage, with Enid occasionally accompanying them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    November 06, 2013 —
    Home builders are worried that the rising prices of new homes might not rise enough and be caught by the rising costs of building them, cutting into the profit margin. “If builders say the trajectory of margins is beginning to peak, then in a cyclical business, people tend to go from thinking the best to thinking the worst,” Stephen Kim, a Barclays analyst told the Wall Street Journal. As of the end of October, the U.S. Home Construction Index was 21% below its highest point in 2013, set back in May. Margins are still over those of last year. Meritage Homes saw a gross margin of 22.8% in 2013’s third quarter, when the same quarter in 2012 had a gross margin of 18.6%. Steven Hilton, the firm’s Chairman and CEO, predicted little or no growth and a decline toward 20% or 21%. On the other hand, with margins at 20.6%, Ryland Homes sees itself at a normal point. Larry Nicholson, the President and CEO of Ryland, said “there’s not a lot of room for it to grow.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    May 16, 2022 —
    In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    October 15, 2014 —
    Canadian existing home sales fell from a four-year high in September (TNBHICY%), the first decline in eight months, led by Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta. Sales fell 1.4 percent to 41,666 units, the Canadian Real Estate Association said today from Ottawa. From a year earlier sales rose 10.6 percent and the average price climbed 5.9 percent to C$408,795 ($362,100). The decline came in part because of a shortage of “affordably priced single family homes,” Beth Crosbie, CREA President, said in the report. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Quinn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Quinn may be contacted at gquinn1@bloomberg.net

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    August 17, 2011 —

    A newly filed, yet unpublished, court opinion opines that a construction manager cannot file a construction lien in Washington state. So, how far reaching is this opinion?

    In the case of Blue Diamond Group Inc. v. KB Seattle 1, Inc., et al, a New York construction manager filed a lien against the Westfield Southcenter Mall in Tukwila, Washington. The lien was filed after the owner of a coffee stand failed to pay Blue Diamond for consulting services used in the construction of a kiosk.

    Blue Diamond served as the owner’s agent, assisting with managing subcontractors, vendors and other tasks. The manager’s tasks also included paying invoices, managing deliveries, setting schedules and other site managerial tasks. Blue Diamond was not registered as a contractor under Washington’s RCW 18.27.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court’s decision…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    November 23, 2020 —
    In RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege. In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of