BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts stucco expert witnessCambridge 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


    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

    You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    Designer of World’s Tallest Building Wants to Turn Skyscrapers Into Batteries

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

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

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

    Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

    Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    May 10, 2013 —
    Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) recently won a decision against Larimer County regarding a claim for damage caused to the roofs of several buildings at the County Fairgrounds. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 238865, p. 1 (10th Cir. 2013). Larimer County alleged, in district court, that snowstorms and the weight of the snow build-up caused damage to the roof structures. Id. After the district court found for Travelers on a motion for summary judgment, Larimer County appealed the ruling, claiming that Traveler’s was obligated under the insurance policy to pay for repair costs to portions of the roofing structure. Id. The underlying claim for repairs originates with several snowstorms that caused damage to several buildings on the County Fairgrounds. The damage claimed was widespread to the roof structures, evidenced by rolling and buckling purlins (horizontal beams running along the length of the roof, resting upon the principal rafters at right angles and supporting the ordinary rafters). Travelers denied the claim based on its own investigation which concluded the damage was caused by design and construction defects, and therefore excluded from coverage under the insurance policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
    Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    A Court-Side Seat: An End-of-Year Environmental Update

    January 09, 2023 —
    As 2022 draws to a close, here is a brief description of recent environmental and regulatory law rulings, as well as new federal rulemaking proceedings. United States Tax Court
    Green Valley Investors, LLC et al, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue On November 9, 2022, the Tax Court agreed with the taxpayers that the IRS’s use of administrative Notice 2017-10 to impose substantial tax liabilities violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The notice was the agency’s response to a provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 which increased the penalties for engaging in a reportable transaction understatement. Here, at issue was the value of charitable deductions generated by the creation of environmental easements made in connection with land transactions. These claimed deductions amounted to more than $60 million. The petitioners argued that IRS Notice 2017-10, which authorized such large penalties, was in fact a “legislative rule” whose promulgation should have complied with the notice and comment requirements of the APA. The agency contended that the Congress, by implication, absolved the IRS from the notice and comment requirements. The court agreed with the petitioners and set aside Notice 2017-10 and the imposition of penalties under Section 6662A of the Jobs Creation Act. On December 8, 2022, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would correct the APA deficiencies noted by the courts. (See 87 FR 75185.)
    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

    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.

    Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs

    December 26, 2022 —
    There is an emerging market that appears poised to increasingly provide opportunities to monetize architectural and other construction designs through the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Last year, artist Krista Kim reportedly made the first sale of a digital home design via an NFT marketplace, for over $500,000. With some NFTs selling for millions of dollars, monetizing digital designs is undoubtedly an enticing prospect for architects, engineers, and other design professionals. It is thus critical to understand the application of intellectual property rights to NFTs and to address those rights in contracts involving design professionals. What is an NFT? To understand the market for NFTs it is necessary to first understand blockchain technology. A blockchain is a decentralized system of recording information via a digital ledger of transactions duplicated and distributed across many computers. The manner in which each block of the ledger chain is created—using a cryptographic mathematical algorithm tied into the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data—prevents it from being changed retroactively without a change to all subsequent blocks and consensus of the decentralized network. An NFT is a ‘token’ secured to a blockchain. It can represent ownership of any item that is non-fungible, i.e., any item that has unique qualities that add value and make the item non-interchangeable. NFTs can take unlimited forms, including, for example, tokens representing unique artwork, music, fashion items, in-game items, essays, collectibles, memorabilia, furniture, and real estate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Colin C. Holley, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Holley may be contacted at cholley@watttieder.com

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    February 18, 2020 —
    There may be tension between the enforcement of statutory mechanic’s lien claims when a contractual dispute resolution provision calls for arbitration. Once the parties are in arbitration, it may not be clear whether the arbitrator has authority to make factual determinations regarding amount and validity of mechanic’s liens, and whether courts are bound by these determinations. This uncertainty stems from the fact that in most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, many mechanic’s liens statutes define foreclosure as a “judicial process,” and courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to issue orders foreclosing on real property1. The risk for contractors and owners is that they will spend time and money re-litigating factual issues related to proving elements of a mechanic’s lien claim, including the proper lien amount, timeliness and other prerequisites. Without a clear understanding of what issues and elements are arbitrable, the parties run the risk that an arbitrator will rule on certain elements only to find out during post-arbitration lien foreclosure proceedings that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations on those elements. Questions therefore arise whether a court will enforce the arbitrator’s determinations and whether the parties must relitigate mechanic’s lien issues creating a further risk of inconsistent rulings. These risks can be minimized through arbitration provisions which address these issues, express requests in arbitration demands and by ensuring that arbitration awards contain explicit determinations of mechanic’s liens issues. Reprinted courtesy of Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Potter may be contacted at tpotter@coxcastle.com Mr. Campbell may be contacted at rcampbell@coxcastle.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020

    February 24, 2020 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Adam P. Joffe and Heather Fleming have been elected to the partnership effective January 1, 2020. “Heather and Adam are terrific additions to our partnership and team. They are both effective, experienced and driven lawyers who work steadfastly on behalf of clients to meet their needs,” said Michael Knippen, firm chair. Adam joined the firm in 2019 and is based in the firm’s Chicago office, which now includes 10 partners. He counsels and represents insurers in complex first-party and third-party coverage litigation. Adam also advises insurers on their coverage obligations under primary and excess commercial lines policies, including commercial general liability, employment practices liability, professional liability, and commercial property policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    January 27, 2014 —
    The EPA recently amended the “’All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’ concerning environmental site assessments of potentially contaminated sites,” reports the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog. Engineers will need to be aware that “Phase I assessments should now reference ASTM International’s E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” in order to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    August 24, 2017 —
    It will take months to complete remediation of the largest sinkhole in Pasco County, Fla.’s recent history, county officials say. Seven houses have been lost or condemned since the sinkhole was reported at 7:21 a.m. on July 14. That day, two houses collapsed into the hole, which initially measured 225 ft long and 50 ft deep. As the cavity’s dimensions grew to between 260 ft and 180 ft, the county red-tagged five additional houses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas F. Armistead, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com