BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness windowsCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts slope failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts forensic architect
    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


    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal

    Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

    Include Materials Price Escalation Clauses in Construction Clauses

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

    A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Power to the Office Worker

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

    FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants

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

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners
    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

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    August 10, 2017 —
    The manufacturer of the Fire Ball ride at the Ohio State Fair claims that excessive corrosion “led to the accident that killed a teenager and injured seven others…in July.” According to a statement by KMG International, reported by ABC News, “Corrosion on the interior of the support beam reduced the beam's thickness, which led to the accident at the fair.” Furthermore, “The company said it conducted an investigation into the incident, which included a visit to the scene and a review of video footage of the incident. The company also conducted a metallurgical inspection of the ride.” A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesperson said “it is aware of 22 deaths associated with amusement attractions since 2010, including Wednesday's incident, but excluding water park and work-related fatalities.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims

    December 20, 2021 —
    On November 23, 2021, the Montana Supreme Court issued an almost unanimous decision in National Indemnity Company v. State of Montana, a ten-year-old coverage dispute arising from claims against the State of Montana alleging it had failed to warn of asbestos dust conditions at vermiculite mining and milling operations in and around Libby, Montana (the Libby Mine) run by W.R. Grace & Company and its predecessors. Affirming in part and reversing in part rulings by the trial court that culminated in a $98 million judgment against the State’s CGL insurer from 1973 to 1975, the court addressed issues including the duty to defend/estoppel, the number of occurrences, “trigger of coverage,” and, in a case of first impression, allocation under Montana law. Whether the Insurer Breached the Duty to Defend Depended Upon the Timeframe The court looked at whether (1) the insured provided sufficient information to bring the claims within the possibility of coverage under the subject policy and (2) the insurer gave “the necessary substance to” fulfilling its duty to defend at four points in the relevant timeframe:
    1. The insurer did not breach its duty at the time the State initially tendered the Libby Mine claims because the State defended the claims through its self-insurance program, hired its own counsel, managed the litigation, made its own defense decisions, and took the position with the insurer that the matter was “under control” and “nothing was left to be done[.]”
    Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father

    October 02, 2023 —
    New York, N.Y. (September 7, 2023) – New York Partner Anthony P. Luckie recently spoke with the Columbia University School of Professional Studies' Alumni publication regarding earning a Master of Science in Construction Administration alongside his father, as well as how the degree will benefit his law practice and clients. As the article explains, Mr. Luckie and his father completed Columbia’s Construction Administration Program last year – only one week before the birth of Mr. Luckie’s own son. Mr. Luckie described that being accepted into the program at Columbia – a school from which “some of the most important figures in American history” have graduated – “was a really big thrill . . . .” He further explained that although he felt a sense of pride in earning the degree, the fact that he and his father shared the experience held even greater meaning for him. He noted, “[W]hile it’s an incredible achievement for both of us to graduate from an Ivy League school, for me, that day was a culmination of a father raising his son. Standing there with him onstage . . . I made sure I took time to feel grateful.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    October 30, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, the FDIC handles the portfolio from Signature Bank, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds a new center at Illinois, the Athletics take their next steps in their move to Las Vegas, and more!
    1. For those looking to rent an Airbnb for future travel to New York City, it just became much harder with new rules taking effect on September 5th. (Natalie Lung, The Washington Post)
    2. This past weekend MGM Resorts suffered a cybersecurity incident that affected some of the company’s systems with the extent of the incident still unknown. (ABC)
    3. Among issues such as rent increases and general inflation, commercial real estate is also having to contend with rising insurance costs due to climate change. (Justin Worland, Time)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    November 15, 2022 —
    (October 28, 2022) - Employers beware! The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is significantly expanding its “Severe Violator Enforcement Program” (SVEP). Employers that are placed into the program by OSHA will be significantly scrutinized, with the potential for very damaging information about their failure to maintain a safe workplace being made public for customers, partners, and vendors to see. As the name suggests, the program is meant to identify, classify, and then stringently monitor employees deemed to be “severe violators” of the OSH Act. According to the OSHA website alert, to be deemed a “severe violator”, the agency must find that the employer has demonstrated “indifference” to the regulations by committing “willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate” violations. Reprinted courtesy of Kip J. Adams, Lewis Brisbois and Steven G. Gatley, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Adams may be contacted at Kip.Adams@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gatley may be contacted at Steven.Gatley@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    March 19, 2014 —
    In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings. The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    June 18, 2019 —
    It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    February 11, 2013 —
    There's a cluster of eight condominium projects in Seattle, some within easy walking distance of each other, that are either in construction defect lawsuits, arbitration, or mediation. Jeff Reynolds, contributing a Seattle PI.com reader blog, notes that as Seattle condo projects have neared the end of the four-year warranty period, condo boards are being targeted by attorneys. Reynolds writes that "once [the attorneys] are hired by the associations, they retain specialists that test for any and all construction defects with the building envelope." The problem that Reynolds sees is that that "major lending institutions stay away from condos with lawsuits." And so homeowners dealing with construction defects have apartments they can't sell to anyone who might want to use financing. This tightens Seattle's already limited inventory, leading to both frustrated sellers and frustrated buyers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of