BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness windowsCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims 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


    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2025 Best Law Firms®

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    White and Williams Earns National "Best Law Firm" Rankings from US News

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Agree First or it May Cost You Later

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    BHA Announces New Orlando Location
    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

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 —

    Built on a program for safer school buildings, schools in Neenan County, Colorado have been shown to have mild-to-moderate structural problems, rendering some of them unsafe. The Denver Post reports that a third-party review of schools built by the Neenan Company has shown structural issues in all fifteen school buildings.

    One school, Meeker Elementary, has been closed as it could collapse under high winds or during an earthquake. Sargent Junior-Senior High School is in use, but there are plans to evacuate the buildings if winds exceed 25 mile per hour. Two schools have roofs that are unable to bear expected loads of snow during the winter.

    The Neenan Company says that the school buildings are not up to their standards and is working with the school districts to repair the buildings. Repairs are expected to be complete by August.

    Read the full story…

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

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    January 15, 2014 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. 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

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    March 16, 2017 —
    The Ohio Court of Appeals determined that the CGL policy was ambiguous as to whether a subcontractor's faulty workmanship was an "occurrence." Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Serv., 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 258 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017). In 2007, Ohio Northern University (ONU) entered a contract with Charles Construction Services, Inc. (CCS) to construct a hotel on the campus. In 2011, the building was completed, but ONU found water intrusion and moisture damage in the interior. When remediating the water damage, ONU found additional, serious structural defects. ONU sued CCS, alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. CCS filed a third-party action against many of its subcontractors. Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) intervened and filed a cross-claim for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage to CCS. CIC and ONU filed cross motions for summary judgment. 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

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    October 16, 2013 —
    When an insurer hires an attorney on behalf of a client in a construction defect suit, that attorney is the client’s lawyer, but as Mike Curry writes on the website of Pendleton Wilson Hennessey & Crow, PC, a point may come when you need to hire your own additional attorney. Even though an insurance company client may refer to the lawyer as “the insurance carrier’s attorney,” Mr. Curry cites the words of the Colorado Bar Association’s ethics committee, “the insured is the client to whom the lawyer’s duty of loyalty is owed, regardless of any retention agreement the lawyer may have with the carrier.” Mr. Curry then offers the example of what happens when the insurance company advises its client that it may not cover. “You presumably call your attorney and ask him to explain what’s going on, what the letter means, and what to do next.” All the attorney can say is “I cannot offer legal advice on coverage issues.” This is the limitation of what Mr. Curry refers to as “the tripartite relationship.” The attorney has been retained for issues related to the construction defect dispute between the insured and the plaintiff. Not between the insurer and its insured. The attorney has, as he points out, a fiduciary obligation to the insurance company. When coverage issues arise, “an independent attorney — one you hire — can help you with the coverage issues that your insurance-assigned attorney simply cannot address.” He further notes that “personal counsel owes no fiduciary obligation to the insurance company,” and can be “utilized to persuade the carrier to provide coverage or settle the case.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    November 12, 2019 —
    If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    January 11, 2021 —
    Where an initial tortfeasor settles in a successive negligence case, the non-settling tortfeasors do not get a credit at trial, says the New Jersey Appellate Division. The court held in Glassman v. Friedel [1], that non-settling successive tortfeasors are not entitled to a pro tanto credit after the initial tortfeasor settles and its negligence is undetermined. Rather, successive tortfeasors have the burden at trial to demonstrate that (1) the initial tortfeasor was negligent, and (2) the initial tortfeasor’s negligence was the proximate cause of the second event. In Glassman, the plaintiff, as executor of his deceased wife’s estate, sued a restaurant and property owner of the site where his wife fell and fractured her ankle. Afterwards, the plaintiff added defendants including the doctors and the medical center that cared for his wife after she fractured her ankle. The plaintiff alleged that they had been negligent during his wife’s surgery, which led to postoperative complications and injuries to his wife’s leg, ultimately resulting in a fatal pulmonary embolism. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Cottone, White and Williams LLP, Robert Wright, White and Williams LLP and Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP Mr. Cottone may be contacted at cottonek@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at wrightr@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    January 06, 2012 —

    Relying on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court determined coverage potentially existed for damage caused by water. Union Sav. Bank v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134398 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2011).

    The Tods purchased property that was mortgaged by Union Savings. The Tods obtained a Landlords Policy for the property from Allstate. When the Tods were in default on their loan, Union Savings notified them that foreclosure proceedings would commence. Union Savings sent an appraiser to the property who discovered water in the basement. Water and electricity to the building were off. Union Savings notified Allstate and later filed a formal claim under the mortgagee clause in the Landlords Policy. This clause stated, "A covered loss will be payable to the mortgagees named on the policy declaration. . . ."

    Allstate denied coverage, citing exclusions for water damage.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    December 13, 2022 —
    Affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the insured subcontractor was entitled to a defense against claims of faulty workmanship, but no defense was owed to the additional insured subcontractor. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Group, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27949 (11th Cir. Oct. 6. 2022).  The general contractor on a project to build a casino and hotel hired GM&P Consulting and Glazing Contractors, Inc. (GM&P) to provide exterior glazing for the building. GM&P enlisted subcontractor KNS to assist it by glazing glass and installing window walls. KNS agreed to provide commercial general liability and other types of insurance, and to indemnify GM&P for liability for damages caused by any of its acts or omissions. KNS acquired a policy from Cincinnati.  The casino filed suit against the general contractor and subcontractors, alleging that GM&P installed defective "Glass Facade" and improperly installed windows. GM&P filed a Hird-party complaint against KNS due to KNS's alleged defective construction of the casino. 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