BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window 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


    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Contractor Owed a Defense

    An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    ICYMI: Highlights From ABC Convention 2024

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    Construction Safety Technologies – Videos

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Motion to Dismiss Insureds' Counterclaim on the Basis of Prior Knowledge Denied

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?
    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

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    April 26, 2011 —

    Decision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate

    The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.

    After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”

    Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”

    However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”

    The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    December 21, 2016 —
    In early September a Texas jury awarded a janitorial $5.3 million against the local chapter of the SEIU. The janitorial firm claimed that the SEIU damaged its reputation and caused it damages when it spread false, defamatory, and disparaging stories about the firm. Specifically, the janitorial firm claimed that the SEIU told the janitorial firms customer and potential customers that the firm “systematically failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, instructed janitors to work off the clock and had fired, threatened or refused to hire janitors who supported joining a union.” According to Law360.com, the union did this with “fliers, handbills, letters, emails, newsletters, speeches and postings on its website accused [the firm] of violating wage-and-hour and other labor laws.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Five Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

    June 26, 2023 —
    Reno, Nev. (June 19, 2023) – Reno Partners John Boyden, Brandon Wright, and Sarah Molleck, Las Vegas Partner Joel Schwarz, and Las Vegas Associate Tamara M. Cannella were recently named to Nevada Business Magazine's 2023 list of "Top Rank Attorneys." Formerly known as "Legal Elite," this annual list represents the top talent in the legal industry across the State of Nevada. According to Nevada Business Magazine, thousands of attorneys are nominated for the list and then scored based on the number and type of votes they receive, with votes from outside an attorney's firm receiving more weight. Finally, before being added to the list, the attorneys, and the votes they receive, go through several levels of verification and scrutiny, with each ballot individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney verified with the State Bar of Nevada. The magazine has published this list for the past 16 years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    January 10, 2018 —

    While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

    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


    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    April 15, 2024 —
    This post takes a look at the enforceability of contract provisions providing for liquidated delay damages after substantial completion. Typically, the assessment of liquidated delay damages ends at substantial completion of a project. However, various standard form contracts, including some of the ConsensusDocs and EJCDC contracts, contain elections allowing for the parties to agree on the use of liquidated damages for failing to achieve substantial completion, final completion, or project milestones. The standard language in the AIA A201 leaves it up to the parties to define the circumstances under which liquidated damages will be awarded. Courts are split on the enforceability of provisions that seek to assess liquidated damages beyond substantial completions. Courts in some jurisdictions will not impose liquidated damages after the date of substantial completion on the ground that liquidated damages would otherwise become a penalty if assessed after the owner has put the project to its intended use. Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 610 A.2d 364 (1992). When the terms are clear, other jurisdictions will enforce contract terms providing for liquidated damages until final completion, even if the owner has taken beneficial use of the facility. Carrothers Const. Co. v. City of S. Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743, 207 P.3d 231 (2009). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
    Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    September 30, 2019 —
    Advocates of the Keystone XL oil pipeline have won a victory in their long effort to construct the project, as the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a state commission's 2017 finding that supported the project's latest route alignment through the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    May 27, 2019 —
    A Toronto area contractor at the center of a series of delays to major projects in Ontario, including a $139-million hospital expansion, has won court protection from its creditors. The Ontario Superior Court earlier this month granted Bondfield Construction Co.’s application for protection, court records show. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    May 25, 2020 —
    As a reader of Construction Law Musings, you no doubt realize that I am a big proponent of “green” or sustainable building. I have also been known to sound a bit like Eeyore when discussing the charge into the breach of green building without considering the potential risks. Thankfully, and despite some of the risk predictions made here (and elsewhere for that matter) there have not been but so many major court cases relating to these risks. However, as a recent article in ENR Magazine warns, this lack of litigation does not mean that you should let your guard down. Just because the economy, warnings by attorneys and others, and possible lack of financial incentive to sue have kept the litigation numbers down does not mean that the risks have gone away. LEED requirements, time horizons and other risks that have become evident during the process of vetting green building contracts and practices still must be dealt with in contracts and insurance policies. These risks are well laid out in the ENR article and in other places here at Musings so I won’t outline them in detail here. 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