BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestrationCambridge Massachusetts structural engineering expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction code 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


    Considering Stormwater Management

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

    Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    Repairs to Hurricane-damaged Sanibel Causeway Completed in 105 Days

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

    Out of the Black

    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

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

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Construction Robots 2023

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Ninth Circuit Holds Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Applies Beyond All-Risk Policies

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions
    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. Drawing 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

    Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

    July 20, 2020 —
    On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes. 1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.” 2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    September 02, 2024 —
    Departing from our blog’s typical coverage of construction related issues, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC is proud to announce that nine members of our firm have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in 2025 in America. Recognition by Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer review and is designed to reflect the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues. Lawyers can be nominated by clients and other lawyers. After nomination, ballots are generated and distributed to lawyers. Voters are asked how likely they would be to refer a case to the nominee and to give a rating and additional comments. Ballots are designed based on the voter’s practice area and geographic region. After feedback is analyzed, Best Lawyers® research staff ensures nominees are in good standing with the ethics committee of their state bar and selects lawyers for recognition. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

    Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?

    November 30, 2016 —
    On Sunday, an ebullient procession of artists, performers, and city residents filled Collins Avenue between Miami Beach’s 32nd and 36th streets to inaugurate the Faena Forum, a 43,000--square-foot, $150 million, performing- and visual-arts space that’s the cultural centerpiece of the Faena District, a $1 billion development comprising luxury hotels, restaurants, and real estate. The complex is the brainchild of Alan Faena, an Argentinian fashion designer-cum-developer known for his all-white outfits, and Len Blavatnik, a Ukrainian born, New York-based billionaire whose net worth is estimated by Bloomberg Billionaires to be $18.6 billion. The parade/carnival/performance was was titled “Side by Tide,” which might be an overly optimistic assessment of Miami Beach's sea level. With "king tides" flooding parking garages and a University of Miami study reporting that Miami Beach has seen a 200 percent increase in flooding in the last decade, the tide isn’t on anyone’s side. It’s already beneath the city, seeping upward, often as not, through the ground’s porous limestone and into buildings’ backlogged storm drains. Aside from ruining the undercarriages of residents’ Porsches, this ground-up flooding has a second, perhaps more deleterious effect on the long-term feasibility of Miami Beach: Normal defenses against a rising ocean—such as sea walls or dykes—are useless. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg
    Mr. Tarmy may be followed on Twitter @jstarmy

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    February 26, 2015 —
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS LOWER COURT DECISION APPROVING $13,703,039 JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF 460 SUN CITY GRAND HOMEOWNERS AGAINST DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF PULTEGROUP, INC., FOR HOMES RIDDLED WITH CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS --In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awards $10,619,640 to another 279 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued Del Webb over construction defects, which Del Webb has appealed-- PHOENIX, Arizona – The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, [on Tuesday] issued a unanimous ruling upholding a lower court decision awarding $13,703,039 to 460 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued developer Del Webb Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of PulteGroup, Inc., for numerous construction defects that severely damaged the plaintiffs’ homes. Sun City Grand is an age-restricted community located in Surprise. In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awarded $10,619,640 to another group of 279 Sun City Grand homeowners for multiple construction defects in their homes. Stephen Weber, the managing partner in the Phoenix office of Kasdan Weber Turner LLP, which represents the homeowners, said that the case is based on construction defects that damaged the plaintiffs’ homes and took several years to resolve. The defects include defective windows, poorly installed stucco, expansive soil conditions that resulted in cracking of drywall, and deteriorating concrete foundation systems, among other problems. “Del Webb placed an arbitration clause in the sales contracts and the homeowners honored it. The binding arbitration that includes the owners of 460 homes in Sun City Grand was completed in late 2011 when the arbitration panel unanimously awarded the homeowners $13,703,039. Del Webb then challenged the award in Superior Court and the Superior Court confirmed the award in full,” Weber explained. “Del Webb did not like the Superior Court ruling either and challenged it in the Court of Appeals. And now three justices of the Arizona Court of Appeals have unanimously affirmed the Superior Court order and the arbitration award stands. Now they will have the funds to repair their homes, restore their value, and live in comfort,” Weber said. The $13,703,309 award includes amounts for home repairs, attorney fees, expert fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. An additional $1,401,236 in post-judgment interest also accrued while the case was on appeal. The other construction defect case that awarded $10,619,640 to homeowners was not covered by binding arbitration. Del Webb has also appealed that case which will now go through the appeals process. That could take two to three years and again the homeowners will have to wait for the final judgment, Weber noted. Ken Kasdan, senior and managing partner of the Kasdan Weber Turner firm and one of the nation’s leading experts on construction defect litigation, said the defects are egregious. “The multiple defects rob them of pride of ownership,” he said. “A home is something that a homeowner wants to be proud of. Unfortunately, defective workmanship and poor construction have caused damage to the homes. Now these homes can be repaired and the homeowners will no longer have to deal with defective windows and cracked slabs. Developers need to understand that arbitration awards are final and binding,” Kasdan noted. The Kasdan Weber Turner law firm has offices in Phoenix, Arizona and in Irvine, California and Walnut Creek, California. The firm represents property owners in major construction defect litigation. For more information on the firm, visit www.kasdancdlaw.com. Stephen Weber may be contacted at (602) 224-7800. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    November 23, 2020 —
    White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Delaware, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    June 07, 2021 —
    White and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the areas of insurance law, real estate finance and banking and finance law. The firm has also been recognized for achievements and client service in banking and finance law in Philadelphia and the surrounding area. In addition, five lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in real estate finance, another for her work in bankruptcy and restructuring and one for his work in commercial litigation. White and Williams is acknowledged for our renowned practice offering exceptional representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by the team's adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Chambers USA also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability, toxic tort coverage claims, and experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, as one source commented that "all advice was reasoned and respectful. They worked well together and provided exceptional representation." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    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

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    December 31, 2014 —
    According to Sean Whaley of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “The Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a request for class action status for claims of damaged stucco from faulty construction by Del Webb Communities involving nearly 1,000 Sun City Summerlin residents.” However, “the court upheld the award of damages to 71 homeowners following a jury trial in Clark County District Court in 2008.” Whaley reported that this construction defect case was touted as the largest in Nevada history. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of