BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts consulting engineersCambridge Massachusetts expert witness roofingCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts building code 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


    Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

    Out of the Black

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

    Hunton Insurance Practice Again Scores “Tier 1” National Ranking in US News Best Law Firm Rankings

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

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

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies
    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

    What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

    October 07, 2024 —
    Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction industry squarely in its sights.”[1] In this follow-up Alert, we discuss recent cases confirming the renewed regulatory focus on the construction sector, which demonstrate the need to put in place sound practices for non-discriminatory recruitment, hiring, and training of the work force in order to be prepared for this heightened risk of government scrutiny. Recent EEOC Settlements The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that over the next five years it intends to prioritize the mitigation of systemic workplace problems and the historical underrepresentation of women and workers of color in the construction sector.[2] Two recent cases confirm that the EEOC is true to its word when it comes to tackling racial and gender disparities in the construction work force. In August 2024, the EEOC secured two consent decrees with two separate construction firms in Florida, totaling nearly $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth, Dawn Solowey, Seyfarth, Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth and Adrienne Lee, Seyfarth Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Ms. Solowey may be contacted at dsolowey@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at aclee@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    January 08, 2024 —
    When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    March 16, 2020 —
    In Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured. The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work. At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Blog Completes Seventeenth Year

    January 07, 2025 —
    Insurance Law Hawaii reaches the end of its seventeenth year this month. We began posting long ago, in December 2007. We seek to keep readers apprised of developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. Coverage issues surrounding the Maui fires have been top of mind this year. We will continue posting on important coverage developments in the next year. 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

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    July 09, 2019 —
    On June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

    July 31, 2024 —
    Earlier this year, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract. The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robinson + Cole

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

    March 05, 2015 —
    What is Digit Analysis and Why it Should be of Interest to Construction Attorneys? Benford’s Law was named after Frank Benford, a General Electric physicist. Mr. Benford was the first to discover that “leading digits” do not follow a uniform distribution pattern as suggested by intuition. If you are like me, the response to such a statement is “huh”? But stick with me because this is important stuff to anyone who suspects a claim presentation may have been rigged, a bit here or a bit there, or maybe all over. It turns out that calculations purportedly based upon naturally, randomly occurring numbers may have been contrived. By “randomly occurring” we mean numbers that occur naturally without human interference as opposed to a contrived selection. Said another way, it is now accepted as a mathematical truth that the pattern of numbers randomly generated can be distinguished from numbers influenced by human intervention. Yikes, glad you told me that before I prepared my taxes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    November 03, 2016 —
    Attorney’s fees become a component of damages that parties seek to recover whenever there is a contractual or statutory basis for them to recover their fees. Parties want to be able to recover all or substantially most of the attorney’s fees they incurred in pursuing their claim. (In my experience, recovering all of the fees incurred is very challenging.) But, to be entitled to attorney’s fees, a party has to be deemed the prevailing party. There is the sentiment that as long as you recover a positive net judgment (even if it is for $100 when your claim was for $50,000) then you will be able to recover your attorney’s fees which will likely exceed the amount that was ever in dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com