BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts structural engineering expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts defective construction expertCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying 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


    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    Enerpac Plays Critical Role in Industry-changing Discovery for Long Span Bridges at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

    What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

    Exploring Architects’ Perspectives on AI: A Survey of Fears and Hopes

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

    Houston Home Sales Fall for the First Time in Six Months

    "Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders

    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Five Frequently Overlooked Points of Construction Contracts

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys
    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

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    May 31, 2021 —
    The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    August 19, 2015 —
    The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured. Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy. 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

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    December 23, 2023 —
    The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) anticipates proposing a new rule that would revise its “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Fall 2023. The proposed rule would modernize DOI’s rarely used simplified Type A procedures for assessing damages for natural resource injuries tailored at sites involving minor releases of hazardous substances, with a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury occurring in either coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments (the “Type A Rule”). (See 88 Fed. Reg. 3373; see 43 C.F.R. Pt. 11 Subpt. D.) The Type A Rule was last updated in 1997. DOI previewed the proposal in January 2023 in its Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment’s (ORDA) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). In the ANPR, the ORDA surmised that the Type A Rule was rarely used in part because of its restricted scope, but also because “the model equation for each Type A environment is the functional part of the rule itself—with no provisions to reflect evolving toxicology, ecology, technology, or other scientific understanding without a formal amendment to the Type A Rule each time a parameter is modified.” Calling the existing rule “inefficient and inflexible,” the ORDA stated that its proposal to reformulate the rule “as a procedural structure” would “modernize the Type A process and develop a more flexible and enduring rule than what is provided by the two existing static models” (88 Fed. Reg. 3373). Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    May 31, 2021 —
    As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

    December 02, 2019 —
    Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020. AB5 enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test established in Dynamex and now under AB5, a worker may be properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes all three of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Reprinted courtesy of Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears and Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    June 25, 2019 —
    The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.” After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

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

    November 09, 2020 —
    At project sites in Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, 27 McCarthy Building Co. women employees are testing a harness better suited to fit a diversity of body types than the more ubiquitous harnesses generally available at construction sites. Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Grinapol, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    December 14, 2020 —
    America’s country-music capital is making a bet on the world’s most popular sport. A Nashville, Tennessee agency is selling $225 million of bonds to finance the construction of a 30,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium in Music City, anticipating it could be a boon once spectator sports emerge from the pandemic. Local officials have faith that it will: the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County agreed to step in if revenue from the stadium isn’t enough to cover the debt payments, insulating bondholders from risk. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Albright, Bloomberg and Danielle Moran, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of