BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildingsCambridge Massachusetts construction expertsCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts architecture 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


    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal
    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

    Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting

    November 21, 2022 —
    Construction projects can be inherently risky – often there are multiple parties (owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, vendors, government officials, sureties, insurers, and many others), unforeseen site conditions, tangled supply chains, acts of God, inadequate funding, site safety matters, and a whole host of other issues that can make even a relatively straight-forward job complex. Parties necessarily want to minimize their individual risk to the greatest extent possible on construction projects. And to do so, they may seek to push as much risk as possible onto the other side through one-sided terms in their construction contract.   But is an entirely one-sided contract the best way to mitigate risk? In many instances, the answer is no. Every contract is different – and many considerations should be taken into account when drafting and negotiating contracts – but entirely one-sided can often have unintended consequences and create risks that otherwise might not exist in a contract that allocates and balances risk more equally across the parties. This article reviews several considerations (although it is not an exhaustive list) for avoiding one-sided contracts, including some of the benefits created through the use of equitable contract clauses. And for context, some examples of one-sided contract clauses include no relief for other contractor/owner-caused delays; no relief for force majeure events; no relief for unforeseen site conditions; and broad form indemnification clauses (i.e. one party assumes the obligation to pay for another party’s liability even if the other party is solely at fault). Again, this is a non-exhaustive list, and many other standard contract provisions can be altered to become one-sided. But the general premise of a “one-sided contract clause” is that it shifts all risk, obligation, and liability to one party. And this article examines why that might not be the best idea.   Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    May 10, 2013 —
    On May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013). The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    April 06, 2016 —
    My grandfather used to say that “anything worth doing, is worth doing well.” It wasn’t until later that I learned the quote wasn’t his, but a quote from Philip Stanhope the Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, who said in his posthumously published and quite lengthily titled Letters to His Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman, that “whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well.” I’m not sure where my grandfather, who wasn’t a man of letters, picked up this quote, but I like his version better. While “anything worth doing, is worth doing well” can be said to apply to a wide variety of things in life, including living itself, it applies equally to the world of construction payment remedies, which have requirements that are both detailed and deadline driven. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    April 20, 2017 —
    There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how President Trump’s immigration and trade policies will affect the construction industry. In his Construction Today article, Partner Steven Cvitanovic discusses how businesses can remain competitive and profitable during this period of uncertainty, including updating contract documents, recruiting and retaining employees, and increasing cybersecurity efforts. “If you do not know when your contract documents were last updated, it’s probably been too long,” writes Cvitanovic. “Unlike wine, contract documents only get worse with age.” Cvitanovic advises teams to sit down together and review contracts to see if they still meet the firm’s needs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    June 18, 2014 —
    In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    April 15, 2015 —
    In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pile Test Likely for Settling Millennium Tower

    October 04, 2021 —
    A pilot pile program to prove the efficacy of a less-disruptive method for the paused foundation fix at the ailing Millennium Tower in San Francisco could begin the week of Oct. 4. Accelerated settling and tilt—caused by a pile upgrade intended to correct settlement of the 645-ft-tall residential condominium—ceased after Aug. 20, when the engineer-of-record halted the $100-million fix. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    January 06, 2012 —

    The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

    Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

    Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

    On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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