BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts consulting architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildingsCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness public projects
    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


    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Is a Text a Writing?

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    Estimate Tops $5.5B for Cost of Rebuilding After Maui Fires

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony
    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

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    April 15, 2014 —
    On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

    December 17, 2024 —
    Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the construction industry by enhancing efficiency, safety and decision-making throughout the project lifecycle. AI in construction involves the application of advanced technologies like machine learning, computer vision and data analytics to various construction processes. Through AI, machines can learn and imitate human cognitive functions. The possibilities may sound endless, but as an industry traditionally looking from the outside in at technology, we must first step back to educate ourselves on the basics. This paper is meant to function as a starting point in your journey to understand AI and its potential impact on the construction industry. By reading through definitions, construction use cases and considerations, the reader should walk away with a base level of knowledge to ensure they can actively participate in future conversations on AI in construction. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Scarpati, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Las Vegas Partner Sarah Odia Named a 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyer Rising Star

    August 28, 2023 —
    Payne & Fears’ partner Sarah J. Odia has been named to the list of 2023 Super Lawyers® Mountain States Rising Stars, recognizing her excellent contributions to the Las Vegas area legal community. A Super Lawyers® Rising Stars selection is an honor reserved for those attorneys who exhibit excellence in practice. Lawyers nominate fellow attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the legal profession. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fixing That Mistake

    October 25, 2021 —
    Someone once said, more people could learn from their mistakes if they weren’t so busy denying that they made them in the first place. In the construction industry, mistakes are not uncommon. Addressing them, however, can be complicated. What should a contractor do when the project owner says some aspect of the project is not satisfactorily completed or isn’t performing as it should? Should the contractor wait, hoping it may get resolved without having to do anything? Or should the contractor take on the repair or replacement as soon as practically possible? Doing nothing may be easy but can expose the contractor to significant subsequent liability. Dealing with the issue, on the other hand, could result in the destruction of what might later be required evidence in any litigation which develops. Considered “spoliation,” such manipulation or elimination of evidence is a consequence to be avoided. Even though done with the best of intentions to fix a problem, the process can wind up exposing one to liability and damages. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Barthet may be contacted at pbarthet@barthet.com

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    January 11, 2021 —
    Welcome to 2021! As often happens here at Construction Law Musings, the year starts with a few posts on notable construction law cases that dropped in the past year or so. Not only does this review hopefully help you keep up, but helps me keep up with the latest developments (one of the reasons why I keep blogging). The first of these cases is Appalachian Power Co. v. Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. out of the Western District of Virginia federal court. In this case, Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. (“Wagman”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) contracted for the design and construction of a highway interchange project (the “Project”). Wagman and the Appalachian Power Company (“APCO”) entered into a written contract (the “Written Contract”) for APCO to remove and relocate its utility structures (the “Work”) in order to facilitate construction for the Project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    January 19, 2017 —
    If you’re a public entity or contractor involved in public works construction you should be aware of a new law, AB 626, which took effect on the first of this year and establishes a new mandatory claims resolution process for disputes on public works projects. Here’s what you need to know: What is the new law and where is it codified at? AB 626 added new Public Contract Code Section 9204 that according to the bill’s author, Assemblymember David Chiu of San Francisco, establishes “a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project.” 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

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    October 08, 2014 —
    The National Association of Home Builders recently conducted a survey asking its members about the legal issues they faced in the last 12 months and whether they consulted their attorney to deal with the problem. Below are some highlights of the survey. Legal Issue    % of Homebuilders %    Contacted Counsel Warranty/call back claims    34%    51% Contract disputes    22%    84% Defective Install/Workmanship    20%    83% OSHA Issues    13%    33% CGL Coverage Questions    11%    73% Construction Liens    10%    57% 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

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    January 02, 2019 —
    Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of