BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction forensic expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts delay claim expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts defective construction expertCambridge Massachusetts architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts stucco 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


    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    “It Just Didn’t Add Up!”

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    The Quiet War Between California’s Charter Cities and the State’s Prevailing Wage Law

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

    Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    World's Longest Suspension Bridge Takes Shape in Turkey

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    Small Airport to Grow with 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

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    November 03, 2016 —
    The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the insureds' motion to compel and ordered that the insurer produce withheld discovery. Bagley v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115028 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 25, 2016). The insureds' dock and boat ramp were damaged in a storm. Travelers refused to pay for the damage, arguing it was not covered. After Plaintiffs filed suit, Travelers admitted coverage and agreed to pay. The insureds' suit included a claim that Travelers wrongfully denied coverage, thereby costing the insureds money. The insureds moved the court to compel Travelers to respond to certain discovery requests. First, the insureds requested the claims file Travelers maintained on their claim. The court did not order the production of privileged documents, but documents related to claims handling were not privileged. Travelers was ordered to produce all documents in the insureds' claim file that related to claim handling, even if the documents were created after the commencement of litigation. 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

    Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

    August 16, 2021 —
    The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects. In the next case, Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act. The Smart Corners Case In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    August 13, 2014 —
    The excess insurer had a duty to defend after the primary carrier improperly refused its defense obligations. IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13703 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014). IMG was sued for over $300,000,000 for alleged fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (FDUTPA). The lawsuit stemmed from a real estate development project. The plaintiffs had invested in the project and alleged that the developer had sold them undeveloped properties with the promise they would be developed. IMG was a consultant on the project and also licensed to the developer the use of the IMG name and logo in marketing materials. IMG had no contractual obligation to actually develop the property or finance the project. IMG sought coverage from its primary carrier, Great Divide, and from its excess carrier, Westchester. Both denied coverage and refused to defend. 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

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    October 08, 2014 —
    Builder reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) is hosting a new “dynamic roofing system, installed at the Security Forces Building at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas,” which “uses a combination of technologies that heat and cool air and water, produce electricity, and collect rainwater.” If the project is successful, it “could be replicated at thousands of DoD buildings throughout the country in the near future.” Builder described the process: “A retrofitted metal roof is installed over the existing roof, which creates a cavity between the existing and new roofs. Within that cavity insulation, solar thermal heating systems and cooling of air and water for the building can be installed. The roofing, insulation, hydronic solar thermal systems, engineered air pathways, and photovoltaic cells are designed to work symbiotically.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    June 25, 2019 —
    Beyond emerald-green golf links, over snow-white fences, and past tree-lined cul-de-sacs rises the American fantasyland of billionaire Les Wexner. Here in the middle of Ohio, of all places, Wexner—the man behind Victoria’s Secret and its push-up-bra notions of female beauty—has brought to life his singular vision of the heartland. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sophie Alexander, Bloomberg

    Obama Asks for $302 Billion to Fix Bridges and Potholes

    May 01, 2014 —
    The Obama administration sent to Congress legislation that would provide $302 billion for road and transit projects over four years, a measure needed to keep the U.S. Highway Trust Fund from running dry. The Transportation Department proposal would boost the highway fund $87 billion above current levels to generate more money for deficient bridges and aging transit systems. The bill also addresses the General Motors Co. (GM) ignition-switch recall by raising almost 10-fold to $300 million the maximum fine on carmakers that fail to quickly recall deficient vehicles. Congressional transportation leaders in both parties have said they want to pursue six-year measures, though there is little consensus on how to finance the proposals. The Transportation Department has said the Highway Trust Fund -- which relies on gasoline and diesel-fuel taxes -- may not be able to meet its obligations as soon as this year. That risks leading states to slow or halt work in a recovering economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Litvan, Bloomberg
    Ms. Litvan may be contacted at llitvan@bloomberg.net

    New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Imposes Increased Disclosure Requirements On Defendants at the Beginning of Lawsuits

    February 07, 2022 —
    On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, which amends Section 3101(f) of the Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) to require the automatic disclosure of insurance-related items within sixty days of the filing of an answer in a civil suit. For lawsuits pending as of the effective date of the Act, the disclosures required by Section 3101(f) must be provided by March 1, 2022. Pursuant to amended Section 3101(f), defendants (including third-party defendants, cross-claim defendants, and counterclaim defendants) must provide the following information to plaintiffs within sixty days of answering the affirmative pleading, accompanied with a certification from both the defendant and his/her/their/its defense counsel that the disclosures are accurate and complete:
    • Copies of all insurance policies that may be liable to satisfy a judgment in the lawsuit, including the insurance application.
    • The contact information of any individuals responsible for adjusting the claim on each policy, including his/her/their phone number and email address. If a TPA is involved, his/her/their contact information must also be disclosed.
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.

    About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.

    A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.

    In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.

    Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.

    Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”

    Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.

    Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.

    The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.

    Read the court’s decision…

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