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


    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    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

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Construction News Roundup

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

    Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

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

    California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Florida Death Toll Rises by Three, Reaching 27 as Search Resumes

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    Giant Floating Solar Flowers Offer Hope for Coal-Addicted Korea

    Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a C-. It’s an Improvement Though

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Unlicensed Contracting and Florida Statute S. 489.128

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

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

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

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine
    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

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    June 22, 2016 —
    The Montana Supreme Court found that policy language defining "accidents may include intentional acts." Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc., 2016 Mont. LEXIS 269 (Mont. Sup. Ct. April 19, 2016). Jerry and Karen Slack hired Fisher Builders to build a remodeled home located on the site of their home at Flathead Lake. The existing home was an aged vacation home. The County zoning regulations required the remodeled home to incorporate the existing structure. The permit issued to the Slacks required the existing deck to remain unchanged. Fisher elevated the existing home structure on steel beams to pour a new foundation. Fisher began to dismantle the walls while the structure was resting on the beams, and found an infestation of carpenter ants. The ant-infested planks were cut out, apparently in order to salvage what usable materials he could from the remaining structure. The ant-infested boards were subsequently burned. Eventually, the deck collapsed. 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

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    December 11, 2018 —
    Pierre Duhaime, the former CEO of Canadian design-build giant SNC-Lavalin—who resigned from the firm in 2012 in the wake of a contracting bribery scandal in which he was arrested for his alleged role—is now set for a February trial start in Quebec Superior Court. The case relates to payoffs on one project, a multibillion-dollar Montreal hospital on which the firm led the public-private construction consortium. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, ENR
    Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/30/22) – Proptech Trends, Green Construction, and Sustainable Buildings

    December 13, 2022 —
    This week’s round-up explores 4 key trends expected to impact proptech in 2023, global investment in green construction technologies, sustainable buildings and their perceived value for tenants in Europe, and more.
    • Sitting at the crossroads between real estate and technology, proptech has experienced significant growth, which is expected to accelerate via 4 key trends in 2023. (Zain Jaffer, Forbes)
    • Global investment in green construction technologies reached $2.2 billion in 2022, with legislation and technological innovation serving as the key driving forces behind this growth. (Jennifer Kite-Powell, Forbes)
    • In Europe, sustainable buildings have increased the asset values for commercial real estate managers, with tenants willing to pay more for efficient buildings. (David Worford, Environment + Energy Leader)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    September 07, 2020 —
    As anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me. One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land. In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control. 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

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    June 11, 2014 —
    On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Mann may be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    January 21, 2015 —
    For those of you reading this blog who are familiar with Colorado’s law as it pertains to construction defect actions, which I assume to be anyone reading this blog as it does not seem to get much random traffic, you are probably aware that the statute of repose applicable to construction defect actions in Colorado is generally thought of as being six plus two years. Specifically, C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
    (1)(a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

    December 17, 2024 —
    The court found that even if the insured's negligent misrepresentations constituted an accident, the disclosures did not cause physical damage to the property. Wood v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180624 (D. S.C. Sept. 12, 2024). The insured, Clinton Wood, purchased a townhome in January 2014. After the purchase, Wood experienced leaks and significant water intrusion, as did other townhome owners in the same development. Wood and the other owners retained an engineer to evaluate the cause of the water damage. The engineer determined that the water intrusion was caused by defects in the design and construction of the residence. The engineer told Wood that the proposed repairs would not adequately address and resolve the water intrusion and leaks, and that the problems would continue even if repairs were made. 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

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    September 24, 2014 —
    Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP