BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts roofing construction expertCambridge Massachusetts civil engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building expertCambridge Massachusetts stucco expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts structural concrete expert
    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


    Construction Activity on the Upswing

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

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    MTA Debarment Update

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    November 20, 2013 —
    Douglas and Brenda Hess bought a manufactured home from Freedom Homes. Freedom Homes also hired workers to construct the basement and foundation, as well as install the home. Now the Hesses are claiming that the due to the installers, their home was damaged and that they cannot use it. They claim that the defendants refuse to repair the damage, and also claim a variety of things including negligence, frustration of purpose, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    January 28, 2019 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. 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

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    June 01, 2020 —
    Toll Brothers Inc. shares surged after the company posted profit that beat estimates and said deposits on new homes were up in recent weeks, a potential sign of optimism for the luxury housing market. The homebuilder, which focuses on higher-end customers, has struggled during the pandemic. It reported orders for the second quarter that missed estimates and said the key metric had plunged starting March 16, when much of the economy shut down. But investors shrugged off those results, focusing instead on a 13% year-over-year gain this month in deposits, which the company called a “leading indicator of current market demand.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    April 03, 2013 —
    In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

    March 13, 2023 —
    A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor. The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54. 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

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    February 11, 2014 —
    As journalists and visitors descended upon Sochi, Russia for this winter’s Olympic Games, they reported “used linen, improper toilets, poor wiring, unclean water and loose fixtures” using the Twitter hash tag @SochiProblems, according to The International Business Times. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the construction work “in and around Sochi” will be completed by February 23rd—the official end of the games. The International Business Times article features photographs of various unfinished construction sites including an apartment building, hotels, a sports store, and other buildings. The Olympic opening ceremony took place on February 7th. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured

    June 12, 2023 —
    The court found that the insurer continued to be bound by a defense agreement entered with the insured who merged with another company. Continental Ins. Co. v. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52521 (D. Mass. March 28, 2023). In 1990, Neles-Jamesbury became the sucessor by merger to the liabilities of Jamesbury Corp. and Neles, Inc. The companies were both in the business of manufacturing and selling valves. Continental issued two primary CGL policies to Neles, Inc. from 1986 to 1988. After the merger, Neles-Jamesbury was involved in numerous lawsuits that alleged bodily injury from asbestos exposure. Due to the continuing question of whether the policies created duties for Continental, the parties entered into a 2007 Cost Sharing Agreement, which served to clarify and define their respective obligations and coverage in the lawsuits. The agreement noted that Continental wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainties of litigation over defense obligations. 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

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    May 20, 2019 —
    Larsen v. 401 Main St. Inc., 302 Neb. 454 (2019), involved a fire originating in the basement of the Quart House Pub (Pub) in Plattsmouth, Nebraska that spread to and damaged Plattsmouth Chiropractic Center, Inc., a neighboring business. Fire investigators could not enter the building because the structure was unsafe and demolished. The chiropractic center nevertheless sued the Pub alleging that its failure to maintain and replace basement mechanical equipment caused ignition. To prove its claim, the plaintiff retained a mechanical engineer who reviewed documents and concluded that the fire “originated from a failure of one of the items of mechanical equipment located in the area of the [basement] boiler.” Importantly, however, the consultant could not determine the root cause of the fire, could not eliminate the possibility that the fire originated in a compressor, and could not rule out the building’s electrical service as the ignition source because it was outside his area of expertise. The consultant nevertheless found that the fire most likely would not have occurred if the Pub had regularly serviced and replaced the equipment when needed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Konzelmann, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Konzelmann may be contacted at konzelmannc@whiteandwilliams.com