BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts structural concrete expertCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness consultantCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildingsCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts hospital 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


    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Providing “Labor” Under the Miller Act

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Affirmed

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Found In South Dakota

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Boston Construction Bands With Health Care to Fight COVID-19

    Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

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

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (12/07/22) – Home Sales, EV Charging Infrastructure, and Office Occupancy

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Lawmakers Strike Deal on New $38B WRDA

    ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Announces Winners of 2021 AEI Professional Project Award
    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

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    October 30, 2013 —
    The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    December 16, 2019 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

    February 18, 2020 —
    Issued by 13 federal agencies, the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment presented a stark warning on the consequences of climate change for the United States. The report predicts that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will reduce the U.S. economy by as much as 10 percent by the end of the century. The report, which was mandated by Congress and made public by the White House, is notable not only for the precision of its calculations and bluntness of its conclusions—the 1,656-page assessment lays out the devastating effects of a changing climate on the economy—but also in how it conflicts with President Donald Trump’s environmental deregulation plan. U.S. policy efforts at the state and local levels are ramping up to address this complex topic. These include: Targeting Net-Zero Emissions. Hailed as the most aggressive climate law in the nation, New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act are targeting 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040 and economy-wide, net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. California set a statewide target to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. Reducing and Renewing. New Mexico established a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Nevada passed a bill to increase the amount of electricity it gets from renewable resources to 50 percent by 2030. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury
    Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    November 04, 2019 —
    Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. and its parent company are paying a $47-million civil penalty to settle federal allegations that the company sold construction vehicles that weren't certified to meet the appropriate Clean Air Act emissions standards, federal agencies say. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    December 30, 2019 —
    The federal district court agreed remand of the insured's bad faith action to state court was appropriate. Kavanaugh v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138465 (C.D. Calif. Aug. 15, 2019). The insured sued National Union and Great American Insurance Company in state court for failing to defend him in three civil actions. In the alternative, claims were brought against Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. and Chelsea Laing for professional negligence in failing to broker and procure adequate insurance for him. Laing acted as an "agent and/or broker and procured at least one of the policies at issue." Gallagher removed the action based on federal diversity jurisdiction. Although Laing was a citizen of California, Gallagher argued she was fraudulently joined and was a sham defendant, so her citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The insured moved to remand because Laing was a proper defendant. 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

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    October 02, 2013 —
    Crain’s Cleveland Business reports that both commercial and residential construction have seen spending increases in the last twelve months. The gain was only 5.4%, but it’s still welcome in the area. “It’s been quiet so long, it wouldn’t take much to generate an upturn,” according to Tom Laird, of Gilbane Building Co. Some of the upturn comes from new building at universities and hospitals, but the corporate sector is also starting new project. Finally, the city of Cleveland is looking for proposals to develop parcels on their waterfront. Still, some are wary. “It might just be a bubble,” said Jason Jones, the general manager of Turner Construction’s Cleveland office. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    September 03, 2014 —
    Henderson Land Development Co. (12), controlled by billionaire Lee Shau-kee, will spend HK$6.5 billion ($839 million) on a shopping center in a prime retail area of Hong Kong after beating 17 rivals to win a land tender. The complex in the Tsim Sha Tsui district will be completed by 2019 and will house retail, services and dining, as well as a public 345-space parking garage, spokeswoman Bonnie Ngan said yesterday, citing Vice Chairman Martin Lee. Henderson won the site for HK$4.69 billion as the highest bidder, the government said in a statement yesterday. Henderson beat other developers, including Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1), Sino Land Co. (83), and Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd., to win the site in the district host to global luxury brands and hotels such as the Peninsula. The price was more than the HK$3.4 billion median estimate of three surveyors compiled by Bloomberg News. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Yun, Bloomberg
    Ms. Yun may be contacted at myun11@bloomberg.net

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    September 24, 2014 —
    Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP