BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts building code compliance expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts structural engineering expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction 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


    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    “Since You Asked. . .”

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/06/22

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    3D Printing: A New Era in Concrete Construction

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    Want to Make Your Jobsite Safer? Look to the Skies.

    Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    Everybody Is Going to End Up Paying for Texas' Climate Crisis

    ‘Like a War Zone’: Malibu Fire Ravages Multimillion-Dollar Homes

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    "Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous

    Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower
    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

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    May 13, 2019 —
    With the explosion of the “private” rental business wherein residential property owners rent their house or condo on a short-term basis to third-parties, certain legal issues have arisen with regard to the duties owed by the property owner to the renter. A recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Haynes-Garrett v. Dunn, 818 S.E.2d 798 (Va. 2018), addressed that issue. In that case, the property owners owned a rental house in Virginia Beach. The property was not the owners’ main residence, but rather a vacation home that was sometimes used by the owners, but mostly used as a rental. The issue addressed by the court was whether – for the purpose of evaluating the owners’ duty of care to the renter – the relationship should be classified as a “landlord-tenant” relationship or an “innkeeper-guest” relationship. This classification was important because the duties of the owner to the renter were significantly different depending on the category. In the landlord-tenant arena, under Virginia law, the landlord has no duty to maintain the property in a safe condition because the property is deemed to be under the tenant’s exclusive control. (An exception being concealment or fraud by the landlord as to some defect in the premises that is known to the landlord but unknown to the tenant.) Assuming that exception does not apply, the tenant takes the premises in whatever condition they may be in, thus assuming all risk of personal injury from defects or dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

    Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

    September 09, 2024 —
    A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida, Berkley Insurance Co. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Case 1:19-cv-23059-KMW (S.D.Fla. July 22, 2024), provides valuable takeaways on schedule-based disputes between a general contractor and subcontractor on a high-rise project. In a nutshell, the general contractor’s original project schedule was abandoned due to project delays and the project wasn’t being built by any updated project schedule. The subcontractor claimed the general contractor was mismanaging the schedule putting unreasonable manpower and supervision constraints on it, i.e., it was working inefficiently. A bench trial was conducted and the Court found in favor of the subcontractor’s arguments. The Court found the general contractor had unrelated delays and that work activities were no longer methodical but, simply, piecemeal demands. The Court also rejected any inadequate manpower arguments finding the subcontract did not place any manpower requirements on the subcontractor. 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

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    August 19, 2015 —
    The federal district court applied California law to find there was no coverage when the subcontractor was sued for broken tiles on a project. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015). The subcontractor installed stone floor tiles at the project. The developer discovered fractures in some of the tiles. The fractured tiles were removed and replaced. This remediation process required the removal and replacement of portions of drywall and concrete subfloor installed by other subcontractors. The developer sued the subcontractor, who tendered the defense to its insurer. The insurer denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage for the floor tile fracture claims. 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

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    July 14, 2016 —
    The Eighth Circuit rejected the policyholder's appeal on the ambiguity of a subsurface water exclusion. Bull v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9703 (8th Cir. May 27, 2016). Michael Bull, the insured, experienced a leak from a buried pipe beneath his garage slab. The leak caused settling and mold, including the settling and cracking of his foundation, a brick walkway, and interior walls. 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

    Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"

    September 12, 2022 —
    In the July 5, 2022, case of Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Casualty Co., the United States District Court for Colorado addressed the issue of whether damage to defectively installed balconies is considered “property damage” under Colorado law, requiring payment by a commercial general liability policy. Facts of the Case The case stems from a construction project where a subcontractor improperly installed balconies on an apartment complex. The owner of the project secured commercial general liability (CGL) coverage through an OCIP insured by Houston Casualty Company (HHC). The OCIP insured the general contractor and subcontractors. The general contractor also purchased a subcontractor default insurance policy insured by Indian Harbor. All parties agreed that the subcontractor improperly installed portions of various balconies, including flashing, water-proof sealing, and water-resistant barriers, among other defects with the installation process. The parties also agreed that other portions of the balconies were properly installed. However, in order to repair the defects in the installations, every bit of each balcony had to be torn off and re-constructed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    February 04, 2013 —
    Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    July 30, 2015 —
    The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. 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

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    December 16, 2019 —
    On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of