BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts stucco expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts forensic architectCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts engineering 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


    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

    Can I Be Required to Mediate, Arbitrate or Litigate a California Construction Dispute in Some Other State?

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak

    Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Professional Services Exclusion in CGL Policies

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    A Survey of New Texas Environmental Laws

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Parks and Degradation: The Mess at Yosemite

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

    Corps Spells Out Billions in Infrastructure Act Allocations

    Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial
    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

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    July 02, 2014 —
    Georgia small-business owner Julian Smith keeps hearing that the Obama administration’s latest climate regulations will drive up local electric bills. He doesn’t believe the prediction, but he isn’t arguing: The fears are doing wonders for his solar-panel installation company. “My phone is blowing up with new customers,” Smith, owner of SolarSmith LLC of Savannah, said in an interview. “It turns out that if you tell everybody the amount they will spend on electricity will skyrocket, they will believe you.” In Smith’s home state, as in the rest of the nation, businesses and consumers are struggling to size up competing claims about the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants, released June 2. The proposed regulations are among the most sweeping and complex in the EPA’s history, promising to revamp the way electricity has been generated and distributed for a century. Mr. Drajem may be contacted at mdrajem@bloomberg.net; Ms. Newkirk may be contacted at mnewkirk@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Drajem and Margaret Newkirk, Bloomberg

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    March 05, 2015 —
    You know how I’ve stated on many occasions that the contract is king here in Virginia? You know how that included contractual provisions waiving mechanic’s lien rights for subcontractors and suppliers? You know how I thought that the General Assembly would not do anything to make mechanic’s liens in Virginia easier to prosecute? Well, it seems, at least for waivers of mechanic’s lien rights by subcontractors and suppliers (more about general contractors later) I was wrong. This General Assembly session, the Senate introduced a bill, that has now passed both houses as of February 25, 2015, that adds language to Virginia Code Section 43-3 that effectively nullifies any contractual waiver of lien rights prior to any work having been performed by any tier of construction company aside from general contractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

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

    December 30, 2015 —
    Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    November 30, 2017 —
    The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

    September 18, 2023 —
    On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii). Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    July 25, 2022 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was more limited than some environmental advocates had feared. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    October 10, 2013 —
    Although Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely. More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others. The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of