BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts stucco expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting engineersCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window 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


    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    CSLB Reminds California Public Works Contractors to Renew Their Public Works Registration

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Introducing Nomos LLP!

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    What Is the Best Way to Avoid Rezoning Disputes?

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage
    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. Drawing 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

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    June 15, 2017 —
    A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    July 15, 2019 —
    The latest federal regulatory agenda has been released, which, among other matters, lists proposed and projected environmental regulatory proceedings being considered by different departments and agencies. Here are some selected items. EPA 1. The Water Office
    • EPA plans to issue in December 2019 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to consider making a regulatory determination as a prelude to listing as drinking water contaminants PFOA and PFOS pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    • EPA (along with the Corps of Engineers) plans to issue an NPRM in December 2019 that will propose to revise and update its 2008 mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, with a final rule scheduled for September 2020.
    • An NPRM to revise the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category will be released in June 2019.
    • 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

      Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

      July 05, 2021 —
      There are instances where a party can engage in the anticipatory repudiation of their obligations under a contract. In essence, this is basically a party prospectively breaching the contract by repudiating their obligations in the contract. A prospective breach of contract occurs where there is absolute repudiation by one of the parties prior to the time when his performance is due under the terms of the contract. Such a repudiation may be evidenced by words or voluntary acts but the refusal must be distinct, unequivocal, and absolute. Moreover, repudiation can be shown where one party makes additional demands not included in the initial agreement:
      The law is clear that where one party to the contract arbitrarily demands performance not required by the contract and couples this demand with a refusal to further perform unless the demand is met, the party has anticipatorily repudiated the contract, which anticipatory repudiation relieves the non-breaching party of its duty to further perform and creates in it an immediate cause of action for breach of contract. 24 Hr Air Service, Inc. v. Hosanna Community Baptist Church, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly, D1344a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quotations and citations omitted).
      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

      #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

      December 30, 2015 —
      Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper analyzed the above mentioned Belasco case, in which “the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waviers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld.” Glucksman, et al. explained that “the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.” Read the full story... In another article on the subject, Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler of White and Williams LLP concluded, “The Court of Appeal’s holding establishes that, despite the prohibition against the release of unknown claims set forth in section 1524 and the protections provided to homeowners by the Right to Repair Act, California homeowners can, in fact, release or waive claims against homebuilders for future, latent construction defects. To release or waive such claims, the language of any settlement agreement should be unequivocal.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

      February 26, 2015 —
      “Mixing concrete, like baking a cake, is fraught with problems when the recipe is not followed.” – Justice Kenneth Yegan, State Ready Mix, Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B253421 (January 8, 2015). I love jurists who aren’t afraid to mix in a little humour in their opinions. But “[t]he law,” as a framed needlepoint in one of my colleague’s offices says, “is serious business.” And the State Ready Mix case involved one of the thorniest problems in construction litigation: What to do when you’re sued and you think someone else is to blame. 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

      In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

      August 10, 2021 —
      Several decisions of interest were issued in the 2020 term, which stretched from October 2020 until early July 2021. This review will concentrate on environmental and administrative law cases. Texas v. New Mexico On December 14, 2020, the Court issued its ruling in an Original Action. Water is precious in the Pecos River Valley, and the distribution of water is governed by the Pecos River Compact. Here, Texas complained that New Mexico illegally was seeking delivery credits for evaporated water credits but the Court agreed that New Mexico was entitled to these credits under the provisions of the River Master’s Manual. Florida v. Georgia On April 1, 2021, in another waters right ruling on an Original Action filed in the Supreme Court, the Court rejected Florida’s claims that Georgia’s use of interstate waters harmed Florida’s businesses. Florida had to satisfy a heavy burden of proof, which it failed to do. 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

      Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

      May 01, 2019 —
      On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.” The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. 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

      Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

      October 28, 2011 —

      Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

      Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

      Read the full story...

      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of