BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildingsCambridge Massachusetts slope failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building 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


    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Top Lawyers” in New York by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Colorado Nearly Triples Damages Caps for Cases Filed in 2025, Allows Siblings to File Wrongful Death Claims

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss "Redundant Claims" Denied

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    Contractual Setoff and Application When Performance Bond Buys Out of its Exposure

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    US Court Questions 102-Mile Transmission Project Over River Crossing

    Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

    Amazon HQ2 Puts Concrete on an Embodied Carbon Diet

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing

    Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    ASCE and Accelerator for America Release Map to Showcase Projects from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    May 03, 2018 —
    For fine dining experiences outside of the Disneyland Resort, try Summit House Restaurant or the Anaheim White House Italian Steak House . A more unusual and upscale restaurant, try The Hobbit in nearby Orange, California. They offer a seven-course, prix-fixe menu by reservation only. It’s a four-hour dining experience that begins in their Wine Cellar, then guests are taken to their tables in the dining room. Next, is an intermission where guests are encouraged to relax on the patios or visit the kitchen to chat with the chef. Guests then return to their table to finish their entrees and dessert. If you’d rather spend your time in a unique lounge or bar, try the Blind Rabbit, which calls itself Orange County’s speak easy. Located in the Anaheim Packing District, the Blind Rabbit’s tables are all reserved after 5pm, and you might want to brush up on their list of rules prior to visiting. For something casual, try Hollinghead’s Delicatessen in Orange, where you can purchase hand crafted sandwiches and beers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    November 13, 2013 —
    Insurers XL Group and America Contractor’s Insurance Group have teamed up to use “Big Data” to help their clients maintain quality in construction. “Quality is the second leading cause of subcontractor defaults, and one of the biggest areas of profit loss for a General Contractor,” said Jason LaMonica, the profit center head for XL Group’s Subcontractor Default business. ACIG says that their methods “allow us to correlate their quality assurance programs with actual claims results.” ACIG will be adding XL Group’s data to their own, which will allow contractors to “implement best practices leading to continuous improvement in their quality assurance program.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    May 01, 2014 —
    Garrett Kelleher, the Irish developer trying to restore Chicago’s status as home to the tallest building in the U.S., has one last chance to keep his dream alive. The planned lakefront skyscraper is nothing more than a hole in the ground six years after the financial crisis derailed Kelleher’s ambitions. To salvage the project, he must line up money to get out of bankruptcy, then obtain financing for the 2,000-foot (610-meter), Santiago Calatrava-designed Chicago Spire condominium tower, which would surpass New York’s 1 World Trade Center by 224 feet. “I never understood how that project was going to work, frankly,” said Alan Lev, chief executive officer of Belgravia Group Ltd., a Chicago-based housing developer uninvolved in the project. “It’s a real eyesore sitting in the ground, so I hope somebody does something with it.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    November 23, 2016 —
    “Stacking” is a practice that is very favorable for policyholders, especially in environmental coverage cases involving extended pollution events. It allows a policyholder to combine the limits of multiple consecutive policies to cover continuous injury claims occurring over multiple policy periods. Without stacking, insurers can limit a policyholder’s recovery to a single policy limit. The Eastern District of California recently decided that a policyholder could stack the limits of six consecutive policies, where the occurrence was a continuous injury spanning all six policy years. Among other rulings, the court determined that the plain language of the policy under dispute did not prevent stacking. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    October 08, 2014 —
    James Bregenzer, a 31-year-old marketing strategist in Chicago, was rejected for a mortgage in May after successfully financing two previous home purchases. The hitch this time: his monthly payment would have been $100 more than the lender was willing to approve. Bregenzer is in good company. Standards in the U.S. are so high and inflexible that former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, now a Brookings Institute fellow-in-residence with a net worth of at least $1.1 million, said at a conference last week that he couldn’t refinance his house in Washington. Even some doctors struggle to get home loans if they’re self-employed. “We asked if we could go over by $100 and were told that’s just not going to work,” said Bregenzer, who bought his first home before getting married in 2008. “The process of buying a home used to be stupid easy. Now, my wife and I were buying a home with two salaries, we make a heck of a lot more than I used to, and I have to go into great and terrible detail to show documentation.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

    December 02, 2019 —
    On July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    February 10, 2012 —

    Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”

    The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”

    A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”

    Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”

    All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.

    Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”

    In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    October 11, 2017 —
    Lawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne and Jonathan Woy Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of