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


    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

    Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/18/23) – Zillow’s New Pilot Program, Production Begins at Solar Panel Plant in Georgia, and More Diversity on Contracts for Buffalo Bills Stadium

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

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

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Arctic Fires Are Melting Permafrost That Keeps Carbon Underground

    California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

    Best Practices for Installing Networks in New Buildings

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Your Construction Contract

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Be a Good Neighbor: Techniques to Mitigate the Risk of Claims from Adjacent Landowners

    December 07, 2020 —
    In May 2020, a real estate developer performing excavation work in New York was sued by a neighboring property owner for property damage. A court overturned an injunction preventing the developer from continuing excavation work after reviewing a preconstruction assessment that showed the damage to the neighboring property was preexisting—not caused by the excavation (see Feldman v. 3588 Nostrand Ave. LLC as an example) A preconstruction assessment is one of the most important tools in the arsenal of a developer protecting itself from neighbors bringing claims for property damage. Part two of this series will review the benefits of risk mitigation tools recommended for developers such as postconstruction assessments and monitoring during construction. Preconstruction Assessment Overview A preconstruction assessment is a review of a property adjacent to a site where demolition and/or construction activities are to take place. The goal of the assessment is to establish baseline conditions by conducting an inspection of buildings and infrastructure, including identification of existing damage to improvements, so that causation of any alleged damages can be more easily determined. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Levy, Josh Neudorfer & Madeleine Bailey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Levy may be contacted at joshua.levy@huschblackwell.com Mr. Neudorfer may be contacted at jneudorfer@thesigmagroup.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    January 09, 2015 —
    Michael J. Furbush and Thomas P. Wert of Roetzel & Andress discussed Florida’s House Bill 87, which proposes to “substantially overhaul Florida’s Construction Defect Act, Chapter 558, requiring property owners to provide more detailed notice of the alleged defect and imposing sanctions on property owners who make frivolous claims.” Representative Kathleen Passidomo sponsored the bill, which “requires claimants to provide additional details about the alleged defect in the notice of claim, including the specific location of each alleged defect, and the specific provisions of the building code, plans, or specifications that serve as the basis of the defect claim. The failure to include this information in the notice of claim would be considered prima facie evidence of a defective notice.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    November 28, 2018 —
    The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    October 21, 2019 —
    I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. 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

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    February 25, 2014 —
    According to a press release on PR Newswire, “Ben Aderholt has joined Coats Rose law firm's Houston office as Of Counsel.” Aderholt was a “past President of the Houston Bar Association, past Chair of the Mayor's Council and a Director of the State Bar of Texas.” Furthermore, he “has taught commercial law at the University of Houston” and “continues to be active on the Editorial Board of the Construction Law Journal.” Coats Rose has offices in Houston, Clear Lake, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and New Orleans. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

    August 10, 2020 —
    In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Alba, Rec. No. 190389, 2020 Va. LEXIS 53, the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether the trial court erred in finding that a condominium association’s property insurance provider waived its right of subrogation against a tenant of an individual unit owner. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the insurance policy only named unit owners as additional insureds, not tenants, and thus the subrogation waiver in the insurance policy did not apply to tenants. The court also found that the condominium association’s governing documents provided no protections to the unit owner’s tenant because the tenant was not a party to those documents. This case establishes that, in Virginia, a condominium association’s insurance carrier can subrogate against a unit owner’s tenant where the tenant is not identified as an additional insured on the policy. The Alba case involved a fire at a condominium building originating in a unit occupied by Naomi Alba (Alba), who leased the condominium under a rental agreement with the unit owner, John Sailsman (Sailsman). The agreement explicitly held Alba responsible for her conduct and the conduct of her guests. An addendum to the lease stated that Sailsman’s property insurance only applied to the “dwelling itself” and that Alba was required to purchase renters insurance to protect her personal property. Along with the rental agreement, Alba received the condominium association’s Rules & Regulations, Declarations and Bylaws. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    March 16, 2017 —
    Eight years after completion of the wharf project, Zachry and the Port of Houston continue to slug it out in the appellate courts and continue to refi ne Texas construction law along the way. In the latest appellate opinion, the Court of Appeals details the general contractor’s control of the means and methods of their work without interference from a governmental entity. It also supports a subcontractor’s use of a pass-through claim as a cost efficient way to recover damages. By now most of us are familiar with the project and the previous decisions. Zachry sued the Port claiming breach after the Port denied Zachry the right to continue construction using its frozen cutoff wall. The Texas Supreme Court upheld the jury’s $20 million verdict for Zachry, ruling that the Port’s “no damages for delay” clause would not bar Zachry’s claim in light of the Port’s active interference with Zachry’s work. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to consider other arguments that the Port had made. That led to the most recent decision. In December, 2016, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Zachry on all issues and affirmed the jury verdict. In doing so, the Court of Appeals provides several lessons or reminders on Texas Construction law. Reprinted courtesy of Angela A.L. Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Connor may be contacted at aconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of