BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts structural concrete expertCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building envelope expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts structural engineering expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts slope failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge 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


    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    Lawsuit Decries Environmental Assessment for Buffalo, NY, Expressway Cap Project

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Investigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction Site

    Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Toll Brothers Snags Home Builder of the Year Honors at HLS

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Construction and AI: What Contractors Need to Know from ABC’s New Report

    Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    September 03, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    October 21, 2019 —
    One of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows: After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    February 23, 2016 —
    In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    August 06, 2014 —
    Even in death, you can’t escape the property bubble. From New York to London, growing populations are competing with the deceased for land, driving up real-estate costs well into the afterlife. In Asian megacities, where cremation is the norm, even space for urns is in short supply. “At the end of the day, it’s like any other piece of real estate,” says Amy Cunningham, a New York state licensed funeral director. “Prices have conspired to put burials out of the range of most people’s budgets.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Flavia Krause-Jackson, Bloomberg
    Ms. Krause-Jackson may be contacted at fjackson@bloomberg.net

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    June 01, 2020 —
    It’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law. In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    June 05, 2023 —
    In early December 2021, the Denver International Airport made headlines across the U.S. after a hot water pipe broke a month before a major terminal expansion project was expected to complete. The scalding water spilled on floors and across the airport concourse, causing $50 million in damage and a nine-month delay to the project. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maritime Law: An Albatross for Contractors Navigating Marine Construction

    January 03, 2022 —
    “Ah! Well a-day! When evil looks, Had I from old and young! Instead of the cross, the Albatross, About my neck was hung.” 1 Contractors and subcontractors performing construction over water may find themselves encountering maritime law for the first time. Like the ancient mariner’s encounter with an albatross in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, a contractor may be able to use maritime law to safely guide it through rough seas, or, if not careful, a contractor may find itself with maritime law hung, like an albatross, around its neck. This article gives an overview of key maritime law issues to demystify this historical body of law and answers some basic questions. What is admiralty jurisdiction? The Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction over all maritime cases. This jurisdiction gives litigants the opportunity to remove state court cases to federal court and to avoid a jury trial. The purpose of admiralty jurisdiction in federal court is to protect and ensure the uniform treatment of nationwide maritime commerce and extends to maritime contracts and accidents. Any contract which relates to the navigation, business, or commerce of the sea is a maritime contract. Even contracts with mixed obligations on land and sea can fall within admiralty jurisdiction – such as construction contracts with a waterborne component. Admiralty jurisdiction also extends to maritime accidents – those that occur on navigable waters and have a maritime nexus. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cindy Matherne Muller, Jones Walker LLP
    Ms. Muller may be contacted at cmuller@joneswalker.com

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    August 17, 2017 —
    In the wake of its merger with an investment fund, TRC Cos. has been busy swatting away pesky shareholder lawsuits driven by law firms who specialize in such litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com