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


    Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Unlicensed Contractor Shoots for the Stars . . . Sputters on Takeoff

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Job Gains a Positive for Housing

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

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

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    Green Construction Claims: More of the Same

    A WARNing for Companies

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge

    Quick Note: Staying, Not Dismissing, Arbitrable Disputes Under Federal Arbitration Act

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Nationally Ranked as a 2020 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Canada to Ban Foreigners From Buying Homes as Prices Soar

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    What Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?

    Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    March 22, 2018 —
    Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
    • What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?
    • The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.
    Relevant Sections:
    • A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2
    AIA:
    • Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.
    • Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    January 21, 2019 —
    In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (No. G054522, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court held that a developer’s failure to allege the amounts of damages sought in its cross-complaint rendered default judgments against a subcontractor void and, therefore, unenforceable against the subcontractor’s insurers in a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). Yu, the owner, hired ATMI to develop a hotel. ATMI subcontracted with Fitch to perform stucco and paint work. Yu sued ATMI for construction defects and the developer cross-complained against its subcontractors, including Fitch, for breach of contract; warranty; indemnity, etc. Yu’s operative complaint prayed for damages “in an amount not less than $10,000,000, according to proof.” ATMI’s cross-complaint stated that it incorporated the allegations of Yu’s complaint “for identification and informational purposes only,” but “does not admit the truth of any allegations contained therein.” The cross-complaint also prayed for damages with respect to the various causes of action “in an amount according to proof.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    December 11, 2013 —
    A new report from Jones Lang LaSalle tracks some of the changes that the commercial building industry has seen since 2009. One important change is that financing has returned. In reviewing the report, Buildings.com notes that “commercial lending conditions are improving.” A less positive change is that construction costs have gone up, with the increase in residential construction pushing prices up in commercial construction. Green construction has gone from a luxury to something owners and developers want. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What Made the Savannah Harbor Upgrade So Complicated?

    May 10, 2017 —
    Of all the East Coast port upgrade programs aimed at luring cargo traffic from the newly widened Panama Canal, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) may well be the most ambitious, and complex. Elements of the joint effort by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Savannah District and the state of Georgia—originally estimated to cost $706 million, but subsequently increased to $973 million—range from 40 miles of channel dredging and new water quality mitigation facilities to the addition of an upstream fish passage and the recovery of a Civil War-era relic. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    January 21, 2015 —
    Zinc rose for a second day and copper held gains before data showing increased housing construction in the U.S. and a stimulus decision by the European Central Bank. Zinc advanced as much as 0.8 percent. Housing starts in the U.S., the second-largest metals consumer, climbed 1.2 percent in December from the previous month, according to a Bloomberg survey, after falling 1.6 percent in November. The ECB will announce a 550 billion-euro ($636 billion) government-bond purchase program this week, according to 93 percent of respondents in a separate survey. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex Davis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Davis may be contacted at adavis150@bloomberg.net

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com. Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com. ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    March 05, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd., a U.K. marine-energy developer, is planning its second project, a 2.8-gigawatt power plant that will use the tides to generate enough electricity for every home in Wales. The company submitted an environmental impact assessment for the marine power plant that would use 90 turbines installed between Cardiff and Newport, according to an e-mailed statement Monday. The closely held company expects to submit a full planning application in 2017 and the project may go into operation in 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louise Downing, Bloomberg
    Ms. Downing may be contacted at ldowning4@bloomberg.net

    Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

    March 22, 2017 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a county’s claim on developer bonds based on its failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank, — Ga. App. –, A16A1708 (Mar. 16, 2017). Specifically, because the bank was under FDIC receivership, the County was required to pursue administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (the “Act”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com