BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction forensic expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Endorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Claim

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

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    ASCE Statement On White House "Accelerating Infrastructure Summit"

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    Expect the Unexpected (Your Design Contracts in a Post-COVID World)

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective

    Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    The G2G Year in Review: 2021

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence
    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

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    July 11, 2021 —
    You would think I wouldn’t have to discuss the absolute need to respond to any served pleadings, particularly after some of the prior examples of what can happen if you fail to respond. Of course, I wouldn’t be starting a post like this if those that were sued contacted an experienced attorney in a timely fashion and followed this advice. Yet another example of the disastrous results that can occur simply from failing to file responsive pleadings occurred last year in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA. In Pro-Telligent, LLC v. Amex Int’l, Inc. the Court considered a claim for breach of contract (among other causes of action) by Pro-Telligent against Amex. The operative facts are that Pro-Telligent was a subcontractor to Amex that claimed it was unpaid in the amount of $279,660.27, its Complaint was served on January 7, 2021, and Amex did not respond within the required 21-day window. The Court then held a hearing on February 28, 2020, regarding the validity of the Clerk of Court’s entry of default per the rules of court. 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

    New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

    February 22, 2021 —
    In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London,1 New Jersey’s highest court upheld an appellate decision2 finding that New Jersey Transit Corporation (“NJT”) was entitled to full coverage under its property insurance policy for damages caused by Superstorm Sandy. In July 2012, NJT secured a multi-layered “all risks” property insurance program from eleven insurers for the policy period of July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. The policies covered all perils and damage to NJT’s property unless specifically excluded. The primary layer, issued by Lexington Insurance Company, provided the first $50 million of coverage. The second layer provided coverage up to $100 million, the third layer provided an additional $175 million, and the fourth layer provided coverage of $125 million, for a total of $400 million in coverage. The excess layer insurers included Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Torus Specialty Insurance Company, and several other carriers. All participating insurers’ policies included a standard policy form and separate endorsements, some of which were included in all policies and some of which were unique to specific insurers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Kane may be contacted at kkane@sdvlaw.com

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    May 13, 2014 —
    At this week's West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, for every hole-in-one made at the golf putting game at the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth, the firm will make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). Each winner will also receive a $25.00 Best Buy gift card. BHA’s traditional golf game has been technologically reimagined. As the putter steps onto the artificial turf, he or she is plunged into a virtual golf course through an animated video projected on a giant 23 feet wide by 8 feet tall screen! While at the booth, don’t forget to test out BHA’s industry leading data collection and inspection analysis systems. BHA has recently added video overviews to their data collection process, as well as next-day viewing of inspection data via their secured BHA Client Access Portal. Discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility. Attendees can also enter to win Dodger baseball tickets, a new iPad Air, or a trip to the Del Mar Race Track! Other BHA giveaways include water bottles, pocket tape measures, multi-tools, flashlight fans, foam footballs, and Godiva chocolates. Bert L. Howe & Associates strongly supports the goals and principles of the CDCCF, and is honored to assist the foundation in fulfilling its mandate of assisting those in the construction defect community who are in need. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    December 11, 2013 —
    The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that faulty workmanship on a construction project could not be considered an accident under a commercial general liability policy. The first reason they cited, according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, was that a majority of states had concluded that “claims of faulty workmanship, standing alone, are not ‘occurrences’ under CGL policies.” Mr. Salisbury points out a problem with that: “an overwhelming majority of state Supreme Courts that have considered the question have held that faulty workmanship can be (and usually is) accidental and, therefore, is a covered ‘occurrence.’’ He also notes that in four states, the legislatures have passed laws confirming that faulty workmanship is an occurrence. The “majority viewpoint” cited by the Kansas Supreme Court is currently held by four other states, while twenty states hold the view that construction defects are accidents and thus occurrences. Since 2010, five states have reversed their stance, coming to what is now the clear majority view, including South Carolina. The Kansas court relied on a South Carolina decision that Mr. Salisbury described as “since repudiated” by “both the legislature and Supreme Court of that state.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    June 25, 2019 —
    In your next contract, consider including some (or all!) of the following clauses to limit your liability and maximize your profits. Waiver of Consequential Damages While a proven breach of contract will leave a design professional or contractor exposed to direct or compensatory damages, a waiver of consequential damages will help “stop the bleeding” and protect the design professional or contractor from paying every damage that might flow from the breach. Consequential damages include those damages which indirectly flow from the breach of contract, for example, lost rents, lost profits, lost use, lost opportunity, loss of employee productivity, and damages to reputation. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has included a mutual waiver of consequential damages in its sample A201 for over 20 years. The AIA provision includes a definition of consequential damages which are waived, including many of the examples cited above. However, the AIA waiver of consequential damages clause carves out an exception for liquidated damages to the owner. Prudent design professionals and contractors will strike this exception so as not to render the clause meaningless. A well-drafted waiver clause will be mutual, will define which damages are consequential versus direct, and will not contain exceptions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tara Lynch - Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Lynch may be contacted at tlynch@grsm.com

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    January 07, 2015 —
    Reaching into the weeds to analyze a business interruption claim, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals determined the cost of ordinary payroll could be included in the calculation of net profit or loss in determining business loss income when business is resumed quickly after a fire. Verrill Farms, LLC v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 Mass. App. LEXIS 145 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2014). The insured suffered a fire loss at its farm store. Within two days, the business was reopened at alternate locations at reduced capacity. Within a month, the business had resumed nearly full capacity in temporary locations. No employees were laid off. This allowed the insured to maintain its business and generate income. The insured submitted a claim for loss of business income, based on its loss of net income in the year after the fire. The insurer paid a sum considerably less than the claim based upon its interpretation of what expenses could be included in a calculation of net profit or loss in order to determine loss of business income. The trial court held that the insurer did not have to pay the cost of ordinary payroll beyond the sixty-day limit, and granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor. 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

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    January 18, 2021 —
    Withholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness. “Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available. This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    November 23, 2016 —
    Recently, I read an informative article from another attorney addressing considerations of an owner when it receives a repair protocol in response to a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of defect letter. This is a well-written article and raises two important issues applicable to construction defect disputes: 1) how is an owner supposed to respond to a repair protocol submitted by a contractor in accordance with Florida’s 558 notice of construction defects procedure and 2) irrespective of Florida’s 558 procedure, how is an owner supposed to treat a contractual notice to cure / notice of defect requirement that requires the owner to give the contractor a notice to cure a defect. This article raises such pertinent points that I wanted to address the issues and topics raised in this article. 558 Procedure–Owner’s Receipt of Contractor’s Repair Protocol When a contractor submits a repair protocol to an owner in response to a notice of construction defects letter per Florida Statutes Chapter 558, the owner should seriously consider that protocol. The owner does this by discussing with counsel and any retained expert. The owner needs to know whether the protocol is a reasonable, cost-effective protocol to repair the asserted defects or, alternatively, whether the protocol is merely a band-aid approach and/or otherwise insufficiently addresses the claimed defects. Every scenario is different. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com