BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building envelope expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts construction code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building expert
    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


    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    BHA Announces New Orlando Location

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

    Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

    Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (12/4/24) – Highest Rate of Office Conversions, Lending Caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Affordability Challenges for Homebuyers

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    The Burden of Betterment

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

    Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    Storm Eunice Damage in U.K. Could Top £300 Million

    Kiewit Hired as EPC for Fire-Damaged Freeport Gas Terminal Fix

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Partner John Van Vlear Named to Board Of Groundwater Resources Association Of California

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    When OSHA Cites You

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work
    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

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    June 21, 2017 —
    I harp on notifying a liability insurer in writing once a claim is asserted against you. As soon as possible. I harp on this because as an insured you want to remove any doubt or argument that the insurer was prejudiced due to a lack of timely notice. In a recent opinion, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. European Tile and Floors, Inc., 2017 WL 2427172 (M.D.Fla. 2017), the insurer moved for summary judgment in a coverage action arguing that its insured failed to provide it timely written notice. Specifically, the insurer argued that the insured violated the clause in the liability policy that states: 2. Duties in the Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit
      b. If a claim is made or “suit” is brought against any insured, you must:
    1. Immediately record the specifics of the claim or “suit” and the date received; and
    2. Notify us as soon as practicable.
    You must see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or “suit” as soon as practicable.
      c. You and any other insured must:
    1. Immediately send us copies of any demands, notices, summonses or legal papers received in connection with the claim or “suit”;
    2. Authorize us to obtain records and other information;
    3. Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the claim or “suit”; and
    4. Assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right against any person or organization which may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    January 13, 2014 —
    The new Staten Island Courthouse received another setback when James McDonough filed suit stating unsafe work conditions, according to Frank Donnelly writing for Silive. The completion date for the new multistory, $230 million complex has been rescheduled four times so far. Fifty-eight year old James McDonough, resident of Ridgewood Queens, became injured after a fall down a shaft, and he subsequently “sued the city, state Dormitory Authority, the state Office of Court Administration and various contractors,” Donnelly reported. A total of ten defendants have been named in the suit. According to Silive, the Office of Court Administration, Dormitory Authority and the Law Department would not comment on the pending litigation further except to say that papers have been filed and the case is under review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    March 05, 2015 —
    The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien. The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge. The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective. The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility. For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner). William L. Porter of Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    April 11, 2022 —
    In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:
    "Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    June 21, 2021 —
    When it comes to drafting and negotiating a subcontract, there are provisions that should be important to you from a risk assessment standpoint. From the subcontractor’s standpoint, below are questions you should ask, or issues you should consider, as you go through the subcontract. These are the same questions and issues that are also important to a contractor as the contractor will want to ensure these issues are included in the subcontract. By asking yourself these questions, you can check to see how the subcontract addresses these issues, and how the risk should be negotiated. Hopefully, you are working with counsel to make sure you understand what risk you are assuming and those provisions you want to try to push back on. Asking yourself these questions, or considering these questions, will help you go through the subcontract with a purpose based on the risk profile of the project and certain risk you don’t want to assume.
    • Prime Contract –> Does the subcontract incorporate the prime contract? Make sure to request the prime contract since the subcontract will identify the prime contract as part of the Subcontract Documents and will require you to assume towards the contractor the same obligations the contractor is required to assume towards the owner.
    • Scope of Work –> What is the scope of work? Is it clear. Make sure the scope is clear and you understand the scope.
    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

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    March 01, 2017 —
    It’s been a whirlwind since Donald Trump became President. Some might even say a tornado. Many believed (including myself) that he couldn’t win. I was wrong. Some also believed (again, including myself) that he wouldn’t make good on his campaign promises. So far, he has. While I usually don’t like being wrong, if there’s one thing I couldn’t be happier being wrong about, it’s President Trump’s promises to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. So, what can the construction industry expect under our first developer-turned-POTUS, Donald Trump, who is arguably the most exciting President for the construction industry since FDR? Where We Are Today The American Society of Engineers, in its oft-cited infrastructure “Report Card,” gave nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of D+, with an estimated investment infusion of $3.6 trillion needed by 2020 just to keep the nation’s infrastructure in “good” (note, not “great”) repair. 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

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    June 30, 2016 —
    The U.S., Canada and Mexico have agreed to boost their combined clean-energy generation to 50% of electricity production by 2025, from 37% last year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com