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


    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

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

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/16/22) – Backlog Shifts, Green Battery Storage, and Russia-Ukraine Updates

    Berlin Lawmakers Get a New Green Workspace

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    Traub Lieberman Recognized in 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”

    Freight Train Carrying Hot Asphalt, Molten Sulfur Plunges Into Yellowstone River as Bridge Fails

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/05/22) – Hurricane Ian, the Inflation Reduction Act, and European Real Estate

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Architect Has No Duty to Safeguard Third Parties Against Injury, Regardless of Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions on the Project

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June
    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

    Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

    August 05, 2024 —
    A recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute. In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06. 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

    More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

    June 04, 2024 —
    Well, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future. Now. . . on with the post: I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those sticky clauses are unenforceable to what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract. The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    February 01, 2021 —
    A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    June 26, 2023 —
    Summary of the new law as it pertains to builders of new homes: The existing 10-year statute of repose for builders of new homes (the ultimate cut-off date for filing suit) has been shortened to 6 years if the builder provides a 1-2-6 written warranty (1-year workmanship and materials; 2-year plumbing, electrical and HVAC; 6-year structural). Extended time to bring suit if written claim presented during the period of repose: If a written claim for damages, contribution, or indemnity is presented to the builder during the applicable limitations period and the 6-year statute of repose applies, the time to sue is extended one year from the date the claim is presented. In practical effect, this means that if a written claim is presented and the statute of repose expires before suit is filed, suit may still be filed provided it is within one year of the date the written claim was made. When the new law goes into effect: The new law is effective as of June 9, 2023 and applies to suits commenced on or after that date. However, if the contract under which the claim is brought was entered into before June 9, 2023, the former 10-year version of the statute of repose applies. In other words, the statute applies to contracts entered into on or after June 9, 2023, if the contract has at least a 1-2-6 warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at kaltsuler@pecklaw.com

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    February 14, 2014 —
    Richard Tufaro, a New Jersey carpenter who suffered injuries from an elevator accident in 2005, had lost a $4 million award on appeal, but has recently “won $8million on retrial” according to The New Jersey Law Journal. In March of 2012, during the first trial, the “jury awarded $2.8 million for pain and suffering, $233,000 in medical expenses and $950,000 per quod to Tufaro's wife, totaling about $4 million.” In March 2013 the ruling was reversed by the Appellate Division who found “the verdict sheet and Coburn's jury instructions ‘together created a misleading and ambiguous deliberative environment, fully capable of engendering an unjust result.’" On February 11th, at the conclusion of the retrial, the jury “found Schindler Elevator and Escalator Co.'s negligent maintenance of an elevator led to a two-and-a-half-story plunge that left Richard Tufaro with neck and back injuries” and awarded Tufaro “$5.5 million for pain and suffering, $2.25 million per quod and $250,000 in medical expenses.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    April 25, 2022 —
    When critical path activities are delayed by the owner (or another party), contractors will sometimes “pace,” or slow down, other activities to match the owner-caused delay. After all, why should the contractor hurry up and wait? But paced activities can often appear as concurrent delays on a project’s overall schedule. And all too often, contractors fail to contemporaneously document their efforts to pace work. Not only can this create avoidable disputes with owners and other contractors, but it can also create future roadblocks to the recovery of delay damages. This article examines the interplay between pacing and concurrent delay[1] and what contractors should do to minimize risk and preserve their rights to obtain more than a simple time extension for project delays. Pacing versus Concurrent Delay As a basic matter, most contracts allocate responsibility/liability for a schedule delay to the party that caused the delay. For example, if an owner is contractually required to provide equipment for a contractor to install, then the owner likely bears responsibility for any delays caused if the equipment is delivered late. If, however, the contractor was also behind schedule on other activities during this time and the project would have been delayed regardless of the owner’s late deliveries, then the delay is probably concurrent. And the contractor will generally be entitled to only an extension of time, and no other monetary relief. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    November 18, 2024 —
    St. Louis/Kansas City, Mo. (October 23, 2024) - St. Louis Partners Tracy J. Cowan and Karen M. Volkman, along with Kansas City Partner Vincent Gunter, secured a defense verdict in a Jackson County, Missouri matter on behalf of a Lewis Brisbois client, which was the successor-in-interest to a life, health and reinsurance firm, against claims brought by an individual who worked in the corporate headquarters and was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Background The plaintiff was 62 years old when she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She worked as a clerk for several years in the 1970s in a 19-story office building that opened in 1963. The plaintiff claimed construction work being performed in the areas where she worked exposed her to asbestos from above the suspended ceiling. The beams and girders in the building were fireproofed with sprayed-on insulation. Although the plaintiff did not perform any maintenance work, she relied on evidence from several operating engineers who worked above the ceiling near the fireproofing to establish the presence of asbestos in the building. The plaintiff submitted claims for negligence and unsafe workplace. At the beginning of trial, the LBBS client had a pending motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was governed by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court denied a motion to continue the trial and submitted the workers’ compensation issue as an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

    October 09, 2023 —
    Lafayette, La. (August 15, 2023) – Lafayette Associate Kaylin E. Jolivette was recently named Practice Chair of the Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel (LADC) Construction and Commercial practice. LADC is comprised of over 1,400 attorneys in Louisiana who are engaged in the defense of civil litigation. The organization creates CLE programs tailored to individual practices throughout the year to provide members with the knowledge and skills to be among the top litigators in the region. Ms. Jolivette is a member of the General Liability Practice. Her past experience includes practice in an array of civil litigation matters as both plaintiff and defense counsel from the pre-trial litigation phases, to trial and appeals, in various areas including products liability, privacy law, health care law, energy litigation, contractual disputes, personal injury, alternate dispute resolution, and construction litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kaylin Jolivette, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jolivette may be contacted at Kaylin.Jolivette@lewisbrisbois.com