BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts consulting engineersCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural 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


    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael Parme Selected to the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

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

    Jury Trials: A COVID Update

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    Affirmed

    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Constructing a New American Dream

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    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 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

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    November 12, 2019 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    June 15, 2017 —
    In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:
    While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    December 10, 2024 —
    The federal district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment due on the insured's claims for water damage to a church. Unity Church of God in Christ of York v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163204 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024). Unity Church alleged that it suffered a sudden and accidental direct physical loss to its church. Wind damage to the roof of the church allowed rainwater to leak into the sanctuary of the church. Notice was given to Church Mutual Insurance Company, but coverage was denied. Unity Church filed suit alleging breach of contract. Church Mutual answered and asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the water damage to the church was outside the policy's coverage because the damage was caused by rain. Church Mutual filed for summary judgment. 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

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    September 18, 2023 —
    With the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy. A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    March 14, 2018 —
    In Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (No. B280273, filed 2/27/18), a California appeals court affirmed an appraisal award favorable to a homeowners insurer, ruling that it was improper to admit as evidence in opposition to a petition to confirm the award a declaration from the policyholders’ appraiser, except for the limited purpose of showing improprieties in the appraisal, bias, partiality or other improper conduct. The homeowners had a pipe leak and submitted a claim. The insurer responded to an estimate from the owners’ adjuster by retaining an expert and paying an undisputed amount that was significantly less. Eleven months later the owners had upper deck damage and submitted another claim. Relying on the same expert, the insurer paid another undisputed amount significantly less than the owner’s estimate. The owners requested appraisal but the insurer denied the request, contending that the dispute was over coverage and outside the scope of appraisal. The owners’ petition for appraisal was granted, with the court ordering separate listing of items the insurer disputed regarding coverage or causation. The appraisal panel issued an award stating that total damage was $132,293, of which $96,530 was contested by the insurer. The insurer filed a petition to confirm the award, which was granted despite the fact that the owners’ appraiser had refused to sign it. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie 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

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    October 24, 2021 —
    Applying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications. I. Factual Background. The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. McDonald may be contacted at MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com

    Best Practices for Installing Networks in New Buildings

    August 14, 2023 —
    A previous article, "How to Install Networks in an Old Building," discussed the various challenges of implementing networking infrastructure in older spaces. The building layout, age of the building and use cases were the major challenges involved. New buildings provide an opportunity to incorporate state-of-the-art networking infrastructure from the ground up. Careful planning and foresight are essential to ensure optimal network performance and avoid future issues. In new buildings, including corporate offices, multifamily residential complexes, hospitals, educational institutions and retail spaces, the potential use cases and users can vary significantly. Each of these spaces comes with its unique networking requirements. Regardless of the specific network applications, there are fundamental frameworks and best practices that can be employed to build a solid network foundation. By following these guidelines and adapting them to the specific needs of your new building, you can ensure a robust and flexible network infrastructure that accommodates ever-evolving technological demands. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Chown, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    May 22, 2023 —
    Compared to the rest of the world, most buildings in the United States are relatively young. But most residential and commercial properties could use a makeover. Buildings constructed over twenty, fifty and one hundred years ago are, unsurprisingly, not as energy-efficient or as safe as new builds following modern methods—especially when considering the effects of climate change and more frequent extreme weather events on the integrity of that infrastructure. According to the National Association of Home Builders, over 90% of new homes built in the United States today are wood-framed. These homes are incapable of withstanding a tornado or hurricane, yet they are still being built directly in the path of storms. Even buildings constructed in some of the most earthquake-prone areas of the U.S. may contain design flaws that make them susceptible to damage because they are built using a non-ductile concrete method, which experts say has an inadequate configuration of steel reinforcing bars—making the building vulnerable when shaken. While this building method was banned for new construction, it is not yet required to retrofit older construction to improve safety and structural integrity. Reprinted courtesy of Annette Rubin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of