BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building expertCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness consultant
    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


    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Annual Construction Defect Seminar

    Illinois Supreme Court Rules Labor Costs Not Depreciated to Determine Actual Cash Value

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Connecting IoT Data to BIM

    Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    The Top 3 Trends That Will Impact the Construction Industry in 2024

    Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    Wood Wizardry in Oregon: Innovation Raises the Roof for PDX Terminal

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

    Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims
    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

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    September 17, 2015 —
    Perhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement. Some Background BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI. Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    July 19, 2021 —
    Oftentimes an occurrence in a commercial general liability policy is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” It is this occurrence that causes the bodily injury or property damage that may be covered by the policy. An interesting non-construction case determined an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy occurred when the negligent act occurred irrespective of the date of discovery or the date the claim was discovered or asserted. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. J046137 v. Pierson, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1288c (Fla. 4thDCA 2021). This is interesting because the appellate court did NOT apply a “trigger theory” to first determine the occurrence’s policy period. The appellate court found it did not need to determine which “trigger theory” applied to determine the occurrence for the injury and relied on a cited case: “trigger theories are generally used in the context of deciding when damage occurred ‘in cases involving progressive damages, such as latent defects, toxic spills, and asbestosis’ because the time between the ‘injury-causing event (such as defective construction, a fuel leak, or exposure to asbestos), the injury itself, and the injury’s discovery or manifestation can be so far apart.” Pierson, supra, citing and quoting Spartan Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1998). 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

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    January 06, 2020 —
    The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    June 05, 2017 —
    On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise. Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them. Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Returns as a Sponsor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio

    January 13, 2017 —
    Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. is proud to join with the Texas Institute of CLE, and return for the third year as a sponsor and exhibitor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference to be held March 2nd & 3rd, 2017 at the La Cantera Resort and Spa in San Antonio. With offices in San Antonio and Houston serving all of Texas, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA) offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in nearly 6,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and sub-contractors. BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction and construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability, and delay claim analysis as well. As the litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction related cases continues to rise, it is becoming more important for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the Western and Southern United States. Here in Texas, we have been providing construction defect and construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results. To-date, we have participated in the successful defense of claims involving thousands homes here in Texas alone. For those of you planning on attending the conference, or those who may know someone who will be, we encourage you to stop by the BHA booth and we welcome the opportunity to discuss further the broad range of services provided by BHA. For your convenience, here is a link to the information page for the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference: https://www.clesolutions.com/store.aspx?categoryid=2 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Don MacGregor, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
    Mr. MacGregor may be contacted at dmac@berthowe.com

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    September 06, 2023 —
    If you enter a contract to do that in Louisiana, you had better have Louisiana contractor’s license! It is now axiomatic in Louisiana that when a Louisiana contractor’s license is required, the contract for work performed by an unlicensed contractor is an “absolute nullity,” such that the contract is deemed never to have existed. While Louisiana does not prohibit (as would be the case in certain other states) that contractor from quantum meruit/unjust enrichment recovery, who wants to rely on those noncontractual bases for recovery? After any hurricane in Louisiana, out-of-state contractors swoop in. In the case of a water mitigation company from Texas working on a property that was water damaged by Hurricane Ida, the customer refused to pay for services rendered and then defended against payment by urging that work performed by the mitigation firm required a Louisiana contractor’s license – which the mitigation firm lacked. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    November 01, 2022 —
    Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

    How Algorithmic Design Improves Collaboration in Building Design

    June 18, 2019 —
    Design, like everything else in a construction project, is a collaborative effort. Even with digital tools, collaboration across design disciplines is not yet optimal. An experimental project thus set out to test whether algorithmic design could help streamline the interaction between architects and structural engineers. Design data originating from an architect is used in several engineering tools for visualization, analysis, and calculation. Ideally, changes in the architect’s design would propagate automatically across all the software. Unfortunately, the process is in fact mostly manual. Hence, the design data is seldom, if ever, in perfect sync on all systems. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi