BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts delay claim expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction 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 Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    Project Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Recording Deadline

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

    Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award

    Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    When Does a Contractor Legally Abandon a Construction Project?

    Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies

    New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction

    Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    Wreckage Removal Underway at Site of Collapsed Key Bridge in Baltimore, But Weather Slows Progress

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/8/23) – New Handling of Homelessness, Decline in Investments into ESG Funds, and Shrinking of a Homebuyer’s Dollar

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

    The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

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

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    August 04, 2015 —
    In Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools (No. G049060, filed 6/26/15, ord. pub. 7/2/15), a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract. Valley Crest contracted to build a pool at the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point. Valley Crest subcontracted with Mission Pools to perform the work. The master contract contained an indemnity clause in favor of St. Regis, and the subcontract contained an indemnity clause in favor of Valley Crest. An intoxicated guest who was rendered quadriplegic after diving in the shallow end of the pool sued the hotel, Valley Crest, Mission and others involved in the design, construction and operation of the pool. The suit included allegations that the pool depth was improperly marked; there was inadequate warning signage; and the pool finish caused the pool to appear deeper than it was. Valley Crest tendered its defense to Mission Pools under the subcontract’s indemnity agreement. When Mission did not respond, Valley crest filed a cross-complaint for indemnity. All parties ultimately reached a settlement with the injured plaintiff, leaving Valley Crest’s cross-complaint against Mission Pools. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    March 22, 2017 —
    The Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017). The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company. 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

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    March 01, 2021 —
    In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District held that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable where a plaintiff received constructive notice of a defendant’s identity months prior to the last date where filing was permitted pursuant to an applicable statute of limitations. In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, Mark Espinoza, an Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso (OCA/Plaintiff) representative, asked the City of San Jose (“the city”) to place him on the public notice list for a proposed rezoning project. He also twice specifically requested a copy of the notice of determination (NOD) documenting the city’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project. Despite Espinoza diligently requesting all notices for the project, the city, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), failed to send Espinoza the legally operative second NOD for the project; the first NOD was provided to OCA, but named an incorrect party in interest. Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    June 27, 2022 —
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – ASCE strongly opposes the recent announcement from the Biden Administration to suspend the current 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax for three months. Even at the same modest figure of 18 cents per gallon for over 25 years since 1993, the motor fuel tax has represented a reliable federal revenue source for communities to fix and modernize their network of roads, bridges, and transit systems. Suspending the gas tax would result in the loss of billions in revenue from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), significantly diminishing much of the progress made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law at a time when Americans expect improvements to the nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. Replacing this lost revenue with funds from other sources is not a viable long-term solution and sets a damaging precedent. Encouraging states to follow suit will compound this bad idea and further exacerbate our nation's infrastructure funding challenges. Our transportation system, including roadways, bridge spans, and transit networks, can't rely on novel, unpredictable funding. Further, there is little guarantee that motorists will see any real relief at the pump. Gas holidays aren't price controls; the manager at the gas station still gets to set their price. Oil producers have benefited significantly in the past from previous state-level gas tax holidays. There is no mechanism to ensure that these "savings" are passed on to consumers, but there is a virtual guarantee of disrupting transportation dollars and the HTF. While it sounds like an enticing solution when pocketbooks are strained, Congress knows that a variety of factors, including plain supply and demand, affect the prices that people see at fuel stations. Now is the time to build on the momentum of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which, for the first time in decades, takes significant steps to revitalize our nation's aging infrastructure, improve public safety, strengthen our economy, and deliver well-paying jobs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    January 24, 2022 —
    In one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and ruling that the qualified, or “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not apply. Nat’l Indem. Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reserved in part the rulings entered by the trial court, largely upholding a $98,000,000 judgment for the State against its CGL insurer for the policy years 1973 to 1975. The ruling thus helps ensure coverage for the hundreds of claims alleging that the State had failed to warn claimants of the dangers of asbestos exposures to workers in vermiculite mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana, operated by W. R. Grace (the “Libby Mine”). Representing amicus curiae United Policyholders (“UP”), Hunton Andrews Kurth supported the position of the policyholder, the State of Montana, on the key rulings on trigger of coverage, allocation, and the pollution exclusion, with the court specifically citing to the Hunton brief in adopting all-sums allocation. This first post in our series covering the Montana Supreme Court’s decisions will address the court’s rulings on trigger of coverage and allocation. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    October 01, 2013 —
    This August, permits were taken out for $102.3 million of commercial construction projects, a 95% increase over last August’s $52.4 million. Meanwhile, residential construction was up by a third, jumping from $205.6 million to $274.1 million. Overall that sent construction up by 46% in the Orlando area. The construction industry is a major one in the Orlando area and its recovery provides some hope for the region. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    August 27, 2014 —
    Italians were the biggest group of foreigners to buy homes in London’s best districts in the seven months through July as weak domestic growth prompted investment abroad. Italy, which fell into a triple-dip recession in the second quarter, accounted for 6.7 percent of all homes sold in the 13 neighborhoods that Knight Frank LLP defines as prime central London, the broker said in an e-mail today. France was second as euro-area investors accounted for 14.5 percent of purchases, the most in the period since 2011. Russia led the group a year ago, followed by the United Arab Emirates. The European Central Bank’s monetary-policy easing “is driving more euro-zone residents to search for yield abroad,” Goldman Sachs analysts including New York-based chief currency strategist Robin Brooks wrote in a note last week. Yields for homes in prime central London rose in July for the first time since April 2011 as more people opted to rent on concerns that home taxes may rise if the Conservative Party-led government loses next year’s elections, Knight Frank said on Aug. 11. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg
    Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    May 15, 2023 —
    The New Jersey Appellate Division in Handy & Harman v. Beazley USA Services, Inc., provided clarity regarding the interpretation of the Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion in a site-specific environmental liability insurance policy. In Handy & Harman, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that the insurer was not required to defend or indemnify its policyholder, a metal etching company. The court held that the Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion (which applied to prior litigation and prior claims) barred coverage for natural resource damages sought in the current litigation because (1) an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) is a claim; and (2) the underlying lawsuit was based on the same environmental contamination as addressed in the ACO.1 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at SManobianca@sdvlaw.com