BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness windowsCambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building consultant 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


    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    How To Lock Disputes Out Of Your Project In Construction

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard

    Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse

    District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

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

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Roots of Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Reach Back a Decade

    Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Michael Baker Intl. Settles Federal Pay Bias Allegations
    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

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    December 30, 2013 —
    A condominium association in the Aspen, Colorado area will likely go to trial over its claims of construction defects, reports Aspen Daily News Online. According to the suit, siding and trim were improperly manufactured and installed. The homeowners engaged experts to determine the appropriate remedy, and then sought bids from contractors. Shaw Construction, which built the condos, responded with a counteroffer. Chris Rhody, the lawyer for the homeowners, said there was “a big difference” between the association’s request and the builder’s counteroffer. According to Mr. Rhody, settlement is still possible, but seems unlikely. A date for the trial is yet to be set. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    March 06, 2022 —
    Be mindful of that express warranty provision in your contract. It could result in an outcome that you did not consider or factor when submitting your proposal or agreeing to your contract amount. An express warranty could have the effect of eviscerating the argument that you performed your scope of work pursuant to the plans and specifications. In other words, the applicability of the Spearin doctrine could be rendered moot based on express warranty language in your contract that is fully within your control because you do not have to agree to that language. Under the Spearin doctrine:
    [W]hen a ‘contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specification.’ Spearin and its progeny set forth a default rule of fundamental fairness that when a general contractor requires a subcontractor to follow certain plans and specifications, the general contractor impliedly warrants that those plans and specifications are ‘free from design defects.’ Put simply, Spearin protects subcontractors from liability for simply following the general contractor’s direction and requirements. However, the implied warranty set forth in Spearin and its progeny may be overcome by express agreement. Where a general contractor and subcontractor expressly agree to allocate the risk of a defective product to the subcontractor, that express agreement must prevail over Spearin’s implied warranty. Lighting Retrofit International, LLC v. Consellation NewEnergy, Inc., 2022 WL 541156 (D. Md. 2022) (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    August 16, 2021 —
    August 10, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the U.S. Senate for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband access. “Investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs across the country, growing our national and local economies in both the short and long term,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. “The surety industry fully supports this investment and will continue to provide the essential protections necessary to support our country’s infrastructure needs through our suite of products and services.” SFAA also commends the inclusion of the Van Hollen 2354 amendment to the bill, accepted by a unanimous vote of 97-0. The amendment requires payment and performance bonds on all federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving loans and grants under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), protecting taxpayers’ dollars, ensuring project completion, protecting local small business contractors and workers, and promoting economic growth. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. https://www.surety.org/ Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    January 17, 2013 —
    In a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a contractor had a duty to a third party to warn it of a dangerous condition, even after the contractor had completed its work and the owner had accepted the contractor’s work.  Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., -- P.3d --, 2012 WL 5871446 (Colo. App. 2012).  While not an earth shattering or entirely new concept, the decision rendered in Collard directly accepted the foreseeability rule at the expense of the completed and accepted rule.  Id.
     
    In Collard, the City of Grand Junction (“the City”) hired Vista Paving Corp. (“Vista”) to construct two road medians according to the City’s plans and designs.  On July 9, 2007, Vista began work on the medians.  According to its contract with the City, Vista was responsible for traffic control during construction of the medians.  On July 19, 2007, Vista completed its construction of both medians.  On that date, the City’s project inspector conducted his final inspection of Vista’s work.  The City’s inspector then told Vista that its work had been completed and that Vista was authorized to leave the site.  Vista requested permission to remove the traffic control devices to which the City’s inspector agreed.  Vista removed all of its traffic control devices.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    January 29, 2024 —
    In Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court. In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property. 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

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    October 27, 2016 —
    The Insurance Services Office (ISO) has issued a Circular advising it will submit to Insurance Departments in various states proposed changes to the Designated Premises Endorsement. The changes are due in part to the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in C. Brewer & Co. v. Marine Indem. Ins., 135 Haw. 190, 347 P. 3d 163 (Haw. 2015). (Full Disclosure - our office represented C. Brewer before the Hawaii Supreme Court). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    April 26, 2021 —
    This is a brief report on new environmental law decisions, regulations and legislation. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce On March 22, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected a petition to review a Presidential decision to invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate as a monument “an area of submerged land about the size of Connecticut” in the Atlantic Ocean. This action forbids all sorts of economic activity, which compelled the filing of litigation in the First Circuit challenging this designation. Chief Justice Roberts supported the Court’s denial of certiorari, but remarked that a stronger legal case may persuade the Court to review such liberal uses of the Antiquities Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    February 26, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Toll Brothers Inc., the largest U.S. luxury-home builder, rose the most in a year after the company reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit and said it sold more properties at higher prices. Net income for the three months through January was $81.3 million, or 44 cents a share, compared with $45.6 million, or 25 cents, a year earlier, the Horsham, Pennsylvania-based builder said in a statement Tuesday. The average of 14 estimates was for 28 cents a share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net