BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction forensic expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestrationCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction 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


    The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Property Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not Covered

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Biden Administration Issues Buy America Guidance for Federal Infrastructure Funds

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

    Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/6/24) – Construction Tech Deals Surge, Senators Reintroduce Housing Bill, and Nonresidential Spending Drops

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    New Report: Civil Engineering Salaries and Job Satisfaction Are Strong and Climbing at a Faster Rate Than Past Reports

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?

    Colorado’s Three-Bill Approach to Alleged Construction Defect Issues

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se
    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

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    January 27, 2020 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, confirming there was no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defect claim against the insured. Fontaine Bros. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148056 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2019). The City of Worcester contracted with Fontaine Brothers, Inc. to install a new ice refrigeration system at the City's indoor ice rink. After construction, the condensers in two chiller units eroded and stopped operating. The City sued Fontaine for the costs of leasing temporary chillers and installing new ones. The City alleged that Fontaine installed condensers with carbon steel tubes instead of contractually required stainless stell tubes.Further, Fontaine and its subcontractors did not adequately maintain the condensers, in breach of the contract. Fontaine's insurer, Acadia Insurance Company, denied coverage. Fontaine sued Acadia. The court noted that the City's complaint plainly alleged faulty workmanship by Fontaine. However, the City's complaint did not allege that Fontaine intended the condensers to corrode and left open the possibility that Fontaine was unaware of any potential problem or did not foresee the corrosion likely to result from the use of carbon steel components or the maintenance work being done by its subcontractor. Therefore, the Cit's complaint did not foreclose the possibility that the corrosion resulting from Fontaine's alleged faulty workmanship and maintenance might be shown to be an unforeseen or unintended consequence of reckless or negligent conduct. Accordingly, it was possible that there was an occurrence under the policy language. 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

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    December 08, 2016 —
    The use of “severely notched” end connections in the design of timber bridge girders that failed, sending a pair of partly completed pedestrian bridges crashing to the ground—and killing one worker—has come back to haunt the bridge engineer, architect of record and material supplier. The design detail had provoked concerns that were not fully addressed before the November 2014 accident at Wake Technical Community College in Raleigh, N.C., during an expansion project that involved several buildings and the bridges. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    On behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired. Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise. At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Regen O'Malley, Gordon & Rees
    Ms. O'Malley may be contacted at romalley@grsm.com

    Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss

    June 19, 2023 —
    The magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for summary judgment be denied, finding a material issue of fact regard the cause of loss after Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Armstrong v. Amguard Ins Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76869 (E.D. Texas, April 14, 2023). The policy excluded damage caused by wear and tear, differential foundation movement, as-built deficiencies, manual damage, and pre-existing conditions. Texas applied the doctrine of concurrence causes, meaning if damages were due to both covered and non-covered causes of loss, the insureds had to segregate the damage caused by covered causes of loss from the damage caused by non-covered causes of loss. Coverage was denied and the insureds filed suit. 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

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    August 04, 2015 —
    It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

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

    November 06, 2018 —
    Recent amendments to Florida’s Statute of Repose have resulted in concerns as to the scope of risk Florida homebuilders face as a result, and the availability of insurance coverage for such exposures. Previously, the statute provided for a strict, yet straightforward 10-year limitation for latent construction defect claims. Under that language, issues arose when suits were filed near expiration of the statute, because parties seeking to defend claims were given little time to effectively assert related claims. The amendment to the statute serves to lengthen the statute of repose to 11 years for certain cross-claims, compulsory counterclaims, and third-party claims, and in limited circumstances, potentially even longer. Most policies in the Florida marketplace serve to limit coverage under the products-completed operations hazard (“PCO”) to 10 years, and thus, in very limited circumstances, an insured contractor may be exposed to third-party claims under the revised statute. It is important to note, however, that coverage under most CGL policies is occurrence-based, meaning that the policy is triggered by property damage that occurs during the policy period, and therefore, any subsequent claims permitted under the amended statute will necessarily relate to the original property damage that occurred during the 10-year period, and thus, would be covered under the standard 10-year PCO extension. This paper will analyze the anticipated effect of the amendments upon coverage under a 10-year PCO extension. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

    April 05, 2021 —
    The Texas Supreme Court has accepted certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify Texas’ eight-corners rule for determining the existence of a duty to defend. In Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to provide guidance on Texas insurance law. In Bitco, the insured was sued for negligently drilling an irrigation well. The insured allegedly got a drilling bit stuck in a bore hole, refused to fix the issue, and eventually abandoned the well. The policy did not cover continuing property damage known to the insured before the policy incepted. The policy period ran from Oct. 6, 2015 to Oct. 6, 2016, and the parties stipulated the drill bit became stuck in November 2014. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
    Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com

    Designer of World’s Tallest Building Wants to Turn Skyscrapers Into Batteries

    July 31, 2024 —
    The architecture firm that designed the world’s tallest building is considering ways to build skyscrapers that can store energy using gravity. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP has developed a series of prototype designs that use electric motors to elevate massive blocks, creating potential energy that can be converted into electricity when the blocks are lowered. The designs are based on technology developed by partner Energy Vault Holdings Inc. as an alternative to lithium-ion batteries and other types of chemical cells. They are seeking developer partners interested in offsetting greenhouse gas pollution from buildings, which the United Nations estimates are responsible for almost 40% of global emissions. The concept is similar to widely used pumped hydroelectric plants. Energy Vault completed its first major project this month near Shanghai, a stand-alone storage system that can supply as much as 25 megawatts of power for four hours. Other companies are testing new types of gravity storage systems, including ones using abandoned oil wells and mines. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Bloomberg