BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction defect 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


    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market

    Parks and Degradation: The Mess at Yosemite

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    NYT Points to Foreign Minister and Carlos Slim for Collapse of Mexico City Metro

    A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    Connecticut Federal District Court Keeps Busy With Collapse Cases

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Insurer Wrongfully Denies Coverage When Household Member Fails to Submit to EUO

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    Cybersecurity on Your Project: Why Not Follow National Security Strategy?

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims
    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

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    April 20, 2011 —

    The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.

    After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”

    “In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”

    Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:

    [1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.

    [a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.

    [b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.

    [2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.

    [3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.

    [4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.

    In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”

    The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”

    The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.

    The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”

    James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:

    “The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.

    In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”

    The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.

    Read the full story...

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

    Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits

    January 19, 2017 —
    Homeowners on Jan. 6 added another lawsuit to the list pending against Millennium Partners, developer of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower, located in San Francisco’s South-of-Market district. The suit alleges that, as early as 2009, the developers knew the $350-million condo building was sinking faster than expected. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

    November 06, 2023 —
    (November 2, 2023) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for ‘Insurance Law,’ ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ ‘Litigation - Labor and Employment,’ and ‘Environmental Law,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 25 metro regions in its 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®. In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national ranking, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories: Akron
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Corporate Law
    • Mergers & Acquisitions Law
    • Tax Law
    • Trusts & Estates Law
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    November 29, 2021 —
    A unique aspect of doing business with the federal government is the built-in limits on a contractor’s right to assign the contract or the right to payment under the contract to third parties. The Anti-Assignment Act (41 U.S.C. § 6305) prohibits the transfer of a government contract or interest in a government contract to a third party. An assignment of a contract in violation of this law voids the contract except for the government’s right to pursue a breach of contract remedies. What’s a contractor to do when it is acquired/merged with another firm, is restructured or goes through a variety of other types of corporate transaction? The Federal Acquisition Regulations recognize that firms involved in government contracts get bought and sold from time to time and includes procedures for the novation of contracts in certain situations to avoid a potential violation of the Anti-Assignment Act. What Is a Novation? A novation is a three-party agreement between the United States, the original contractor and the new contractor offering to assume the government contract. The purpose the novation is to allow the government to recognize a new contractor as the successor-in-interest to a government contract and avoid a violation of the Anti-Assignment Act. Reprinted courtesy of Hal Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com

    There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

    April 23, 2024 —
    They’re called deadlines for a reason. Usually, because something really bad could happen if you fail to meet the deadline. For those in the construction industry, you probably aware of the “deadline” to bring a claim for latent defects (10 years from substantial completion); the deadline to file suit to foreclose on a mechanics lien (90 days from the date of recording the mechanics lien), and the deadline for serving a preliminary notice (generally, 20 days from the date labor and/or materials are first furnished). Well, here’s another deadline: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 585.310, you have 5 years after a complaint is filed to bring a case to trial, absent the court granting relief. I could leave it at that, but in the next case, Oswald v. Landmark Builders, Inc., 97 Cal.App.5th 240 (2023), was too interesting to pass up. The Oswald Case On June 28, 2016, homeowners Jack Oswald and Anne Seley sued their general contractor and its subcontractors alleging construction defects at their home. Answers and cross-complaints were filed and on February 2017 the trial court determined the case to be complex and appointed a discovery master. A discovery master, for those who may be unfamiliar, is usually a retired judge or third-party lawyer appointed by a court to oversee discovery in a case such as written discovery, depositions, site inspections, etc. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

    March 01, 2017 —
    Yesterday, I was part of a panel at the NC Bar Association Construction Law Winter Meeting, discussing insurance issues for design professionals. One topic we touched on was how to avoid invalidating your insurance. As most of you know, Errors & Omissions insurance (“E&O” coverage) is meant to provide coverage for mistakes you may make in performing your professional architecture or engineering services. E&O coverage is important to protect you in the event of a lawsuit because, as you know, no set of plans is perfect (nor is perfection the standard of care). Be careful, though. Do not promise to provide a higher standard of care than the “professional standard“. If you are asked to sign a contract that states you will use your “professional best,” “best efforts”, “highest care” or similar, you are being asked to sign something that could cost you your E&O coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    October 24, 2021 —
    The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the “PRO Act”) is a proposed law that would dramatically rewrite the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Breathtakingly broad in scope, the PRO Act targets several longstanding features of existing law perceived by unions and labor activists to be unfair to labor and too favorable to employers. The proposed legislation is essentially a grab-bag of grievances that the labor movement has compiled over decades and sought to change through legislation and before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) without success in the past. While the PRO Act would affect virtually all private sector employers, it would alter the labor dynamic in the construction industry in four major ways: 1. Removing the current prohibitions on secondary, jurisdictional, and other forms of picketing. Current law attempts to balance the rights of employers to operate their businesses without unnecessary interference with the rights of unions to protest concerning wages and working conditions. As part of this balancing act, the NLRA prohibits unions from picketing under certain conditions or with certain aims. These restrictions include the prohibition on “secondary” picketing by unions of neutral employers, which are employers with which the union does not have a direct labor dispute, and “jurisdictional” picketing by unions to force an employer to assign certain work to a specific trade or group of employees. The elimination of these restrictions in the PRO Act would have a significant impact on the construction industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew M. MacDonald, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at amacdonald@foxrothschild.com

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    October 22, 2013 —
    The final touches are being put on two developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania. Southview, the larger of the two, comprises 35 single-family homes. Brookside comprises 16 single-family homes. During the next 18 months, the developers of the two communities will be responsible for the community improvements. If, after 18 months, these pass inspection, the township’s engineering firm will recommend that Sanatoga take responsibility for upkeep. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of