BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims 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


    Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Legal Risks of Green Building

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    Clearly Determining in Contract Who Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Were Condos a Bad Idea?

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

    Estimate Tops $5.5B for Cost of Rebuilding After Maui Fires

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    The Power of Planning: Four Key Themes for Mitigating Risk in Construction

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Fourteen Years as a Solo!

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?

    Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government

    "On Second Thought"

    America’s Factories Weren’t Built to Endure This Many Hurricanes

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day

    GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    Elon Musk’s Proposed Vegas Strip Transit System Advanced by City Council Vote

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)
    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

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    October 01, 2013 —
    “We anticipate an increase in residential construction defect litigation in response to this ruling,” David Frenznic, a construction defect lawyer at Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney LLP told the Central Valley Business Times. Mr. Frenznic was responding to an August ruling by the California Court of Appeals that found that SB800 does not create the only remedy for homeowners with construction defects. “Homeowners who suffer actual damage as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies,” said Mr. Frenznick. SB800 established a shorter statute of limitations for construction defect claims, however, “the ruling makes clear that common law claims are still governed by the longer statues of limitations.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    May 10, 2021 —
    Hydrogen is the new buzzword in every industry, and real estate is no exception. Hydrogen does not emit carbon dioxide when burnt and could therefore help reduce the climate impact of buildings, which in aggregate represent one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases after industry and surface transport. To the extent that hydrogen is to become an important power source globally, it will need to enter the domestic power market. The first step appears to be the development of pilot villages. In the UK, there are several hydrogen trials in uninhabited properties or in closed private networks. There are some uninhabited houses on a Royal Air Force base in Cumbria that are exclusively heated with hydrogen and also a private gas network at Keele University which uses 20 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas. In addition, there is a small village near Newcastle that is being used as a test case: for a period of 10 months starting in spring 2021, up to 20 percent hydrogen will be blended into the natural gas network so that more than 650 homes can be partially heated by hydrogen. It is expected that a small number of additional villages will be able to heat their homes with 100 percent hydrogen as soon as 2022, with a scale up to have a hydrogen town by 2030. Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Judd, Pillsbury, Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury Ms. Judd may be contacted at victoria.judd@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    June 17, 2015 —
    Aside from waiver of lien rights (something that will be illegal in Virginia after July 1, 2015), the most troublesome contractual impediment to payment for a subcontractor or supplier on a project often is the “pay if paid” clause. As a general rule, in Virginia, these clauses where drafted in the proper fashion, are enforceable. As I have said many times, in Virginia freedom of contract almost always wins out. While this is the case, I emphasize that such clauses must be very explicit and specific. Furthermore, and in something that should be obvious, these clauses are generally limited by the Courts of Virginia to only be enforceable and to only forgive the need for payment if the upstream contractor on the construction job has not been paid for the work that the sub claiming non payment has done. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    October 26, 2020 —
    Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    May 02, 2022 —
    SAINT PAUL, Mn. — The Minnesota Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released preliminary findings from the 2022 Report Card for Minnesota's Infrastructure, with 10 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C', meaning Minnesota's infrastructure is in mediocre condition. Minnesota has taken steps to make its infrastructure network more sustainable to withstand increasingly severe weather, but additional steps must be taken as the state's infrastructure is aging. Funding has been limited for systems throughout the state, particularly for surface transportation networks, and local and state funding must be increased to bring these critical systems up to speed. Civil engineers graded aviation (B), bridges (C), dams (C), drinking water (C-), energy (C), parks (B-), ports (C-), roads (D+), transit (C-) and wastewater (C). "The ASCE report card serves as an important benchmark for where our infrastructure currently stands and lays out how we can make improvements," said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul. "Knowing that these systems play such a crucial role in economic progress and the safety of Minnesotan families, we have made infrastructure a topline issue and must continue to do so to secure a prosperous future here in Minnesota." ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    June 20, 2022 —
    In general, issues relating to employment law occur in all industries. However, some issues are more likely to be raised in certain employment contexts. For example, office work environments tend to give rise to harassment and discrimination claims while wage and hour disputes and workplace safety claims are common in the oil and gas industry. In the construction industry, employers must be especially cognizant of discrimination and harassment claims, employee misclassification claims, workplace safety issues, and wage and hour claims. In the context of workers’ compensation claims, construction projects often create unusual situations due to the contractual relationships between the parties. Even relatively simple construction of a single-family residence involves several levels of contracting, including between the owner and general contractor, between the owner or general contractor and design team, between the general contractor and subcontractors, and between the prime subcontractors and lower tiered sub-subcontractors. In most circumstances, this would not be an issue. However, when an injured worker makes a workers’ compensation claim, the contractual relationships among the various entities involved in a project can have a significant impact on which party or parties could be liable for the injury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Kaplan, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Kaplan may be contacted at kaplan@hhmrlaw.com

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    January 12, 2015 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Nomura Holdings Inc. (8604), refusing to derail federal government lawsuits that seek billions of dollars over the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities. The justices today turned away an appeal by four banks, including units of RBS and Nomura, in a case stemming from the collapse of two credit unions that owned more than $1.7 billion in those securities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
    Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net