BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts consulting general contractorCambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildingsCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts architectural 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


    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    White and Williams LLP Acquires 6 Attorney Firm

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers

    Yes, Virginia, Contract Terms Do Matter: Financing Term Offers Owner an Escape Hatch

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

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

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Substitute Materials — What Are Your Duties? What Are Your Risks? (Law Note)

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

    Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations
    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

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    March 19, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- A city in the heart of the oil state of Texas is set to become one of the first communities in the U.S. to wean its residents off fossil fuels. The municipal utility in Georgetown, with about 50,000 residents, will get all of its power from renewable resources when SunEdison Inc. completes 150 megawatts of solar farms in West Texas next year. The change was announced Wednesday. It will be the first city to completely embrace clean power in the state, which is the biggest U.S. producer and user of natural gas. More will follow as municipalities seek to insulate themselves from unpredictable prices for fossil fuels, said Paul Gaynor, SunEdison’s executive vice president of North America. Burlington, Vermont, made a similar move with its purchase of a hydroelectric plant last year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Martin, Bloomberg
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin11@bloomberg.net

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    January 06, 2012 —

    In American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    November 21, 2018 —
    Recent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    April 20, 2011 —

    After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.

    When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.

    The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    September 18, 2023 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome a great friend. Scott Wolfe Jr. (@scottwolfejr)is a construction attorney in Louisiana, Washington and Oregon, and is the founding member of the construction practice Wolfe Law Group. He authors the Construction Law Monitor. He is also the founder of the mechanic lien and preliminary notice filing service, Zlien, and the author of its Construction Lien Blog. Residential construction disputes come in all shapes and sizes, but very typically have one thing in common: they can get very nasty. This is understandable, especially in today’s economy. The homeowner is spending hard-earned money on something very personal to them, their home. They want it done right. The contractor is working on really tight margins, and with a diligent client. 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

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    March 27, 2023 —
    It seems like we’ve been seeing a lot of Privette doctrine cases recently. Here’s another, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development, 85 Cal.App.5th 516 (2002), which provides a cautionary tale for general contractors to watch what they include in their scope of work and how they manage projects. The Beach House Case Kyle Brown was a carpenter employed by subcontractor O’Rourke Construction, Inc. who contracted with general contractor Beach House Design and Development to provide finish carpentry on a construction project. A&D Plastering Co., another subcontractor on the project, had erected scaffolding on the project. On June 16, 2017, while using A&D’s scaffolding, Brown fell onto a concrete walkway where he suffered severe injuries. Following the accident, Beach House and A&D inspected the scaffolding and found that some of the scaffolding was not properly secured to the building and that planks, crossbars, ties and guardrails had been cut or were missing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    New York Appellate Division Reverses Denial of Landlord’s Additional Insured Tender

    December 07, 2020 —
    In Wesco Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property & Cas. Co. of America, 2020 WL 6572489 (1st Dep’t Nov. 10, 2020), the New York Appellate Division found that a commercial landlord was owed additional insured coverage in connection with an incident in which a plaintiff slipped and fell on the sidewalk while exiting the leased premises. The tenant, Capital One, was the named insured in a CGL policy issued by Travelers. The policy added the landlord as an additional insured, but “only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [Capital One] and shown in the Schedule.” The lease defined the demised premises to include the building and “all appurtenances.” Travelers denied the landlord’s tender on the basis that the sidewalk did not constitute “that part of the premises leased to” Capital One. In the ensuing declaratory judgment action brought by Wesco (the landlord’s insurer), the court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment on this ground. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    August 03, 2020 —
    In certain jurisdictions, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 is on the rise. As this occurs, there is the possibility that a construction project will have to deal with one or more workers testing positive. That is the current reality. If the dialogue has not occurred before, now is the time to discuss any enhanced measures—above OSHA guidelines—that could be implemented to address this reality and mitigate the risk. Part of the reality, though, is that regardless of the enhanced measures and mitigation, it is impossible to truly prevent this risk. No one disputes COVID-19. There may be a dispute as to whether COVID-19 constitutes a force majeure event or some other event, however, before you start labeling it, you still NEED TO PROVE the impact caused by COVID-19. There needs to be a cause-and-effect relationship so you can address (i) how this impacted the critical path of your schedule and/or (ii) how this impacted labor productivity. In other words, you need to prove causation. Stating there was a delay or loss of productivity without establishing the cause-and-effect relationship (i.e, causation) provides no value because it does not support the production impact or time extension and, without either, there is no basis for additional compensation (even if you establish it should be deemed an excusable, compensable delay). 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