BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer 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


    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

    At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    Recommendations and Drafting Considerations for Construction Contingency Clauses Part III

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

    A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

    'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    Not Our Territory: 11th Circuit Dismisses Hurricane Damage Appraisal Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

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

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Where Do We Go From Here?

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

    Reminder: In Court (as in life) the Worst Thing You Can Do Is Not Show Up

    Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner
    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

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    November 07, 2012 —
    Is the homebuilding crunch over in DC? The Washington Post has reported that while new home construction is up throughout the country, in the DC area, construction has reached levels last seen in 2006. From January to August 2012, there were more than 19,000 building permits issued in the area, nearly doubling the number issued by that point in 2011. While building is on a quicker pace, what’s being built has changed. As compared to 2006, there are more townhomes, condos, and smaller homes being built. The article notes that 11 percent of new construction is condos, while in 2006, it was only 5 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    October 19, 2017 —
    On September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law. NEW REQUIREMENTS Once signed, this bill would impose the following requirements under Labor Code section 218.7:
    • Applies to All Private Works Contracts That Are Entered Starting January 1, 2018. For private works contracts entered on or after January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” (i.e., prime contractor or contractor who has direct contractual relationship with an owner) must assume and be liable for any debt which its subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor incurs “for [a] wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the contract between the direct contractor and the owner.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (a)(1) and (e).)
    • The Labor Commissioner and Joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees May Bring Action to Recover Unpaid Wages on Behalf of Wage Claimants. The California Labor Commissioner and joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees established under the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. § 175a) (typically comprised of labor unions and management) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(1) and (3).) The Labor Commissioner may also bring its claims through administrative hearings (Labor Code section 98) or by citations (Labor Code section 1197.1). (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(1).)
    • Third Parties That Are Owed Fringe or Other Benefit Payments or Contribution on Behalf of Wage Claimants (Labor Unions) May Bring Action. Third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on a wage claimant’s behalf (e.g., labor unions) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for such unpaid benefit payments or contributions. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(2).)
    • It Does Not Confer Wage Claimants With Any Right to Sue Direct Contractors. AB 1701 gives the Labor Commissioner, Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and the unions standing to bring an action against the direct contractor, but it does not confer any private right of action by the wage claimants against the direct contractor.
    • Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and Labor Unions Shall Recover as Prevailing Plaintiffs Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Including Expert Fees. For actions brought by Labor-Management Cooperation Committees or labor unions, “[t]he court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in such an action its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(2)-(3).)
    • Direct Contractor’s Property May Be Attached to Pay for Judgment. AB 1701 authorizes the attachment of direct contractor’s property to pay for any judgment that is entered pursuant to this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (c).)
    • One-Year Statute of Limitation to Bring Action under This Section. Actions brought pursuant to this section must be filed within one year of the earliest of: (1) recordation of a notice of completion of the direct contract; (2) recordation of a notice of cessation of the work covered by direct contract; or (3) actual completion of work covered by direct contract. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (d).)
    • Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply. Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
    • Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply. Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
    • Further Legislative Efforts on Subdivision (h) Are Expected in 2018. Subdivision (h), which states that “[t]he obligations and remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any obligations and remedies otherwise provided by law . . .” (emphasis added) is potentially misleading since the author and sponsor of the bill have indicated that the bill is not intended to punish direct contractors with liquidated damages or penalties. As such, further legislative efforts on subdivision (h) are expected in 2018.
    ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS While workers should be paid for the work they perform, AB 1701 would place undue burden on general contractors to monitor their subcontractors’ payroll, confirm that all wages and benefits are paid timely and withhold disputed payments from non-compliant subcontractors. General contractors would also need to caution against the chain reaction that could result from such withholding, including work stoppage, increased change order requests, and an overall increase in construction costs. Finally, general contractors would need to brace themselves for at least a year after project completion against any union or a Labor-Management Cooperation Committee actions armed with a prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees and expert fees, for previously unidentified subcontractor or sub-subcontractor workers. STRATEGIES DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS SHOULD LOOK FOR In anticipation of AB 1701 being signed into law and its potentially harsh effects, developers and general contractors are advised to consult their attorneys for a review and revision of their existing contracts, to develop plans for accessing and monitoring subcontractor payroll records, and to consider strategies for mitigating claims that may be brought against them, as follows:
    • Execute all pending agreements before January 1, 2018 to avoid the effects of AB 1701;
    • Include an audit provision requiring subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to provide payroll records (at minimum, information set forth in Labor Code section 226) and project award information, regularly and/or upon request, with specific deadlines for such production, as subdivision (f) does not specify what is untimely;
    • Include defense and indemnity provisions that would require subcontractors to defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims that are brought pursuant to this section arising from labor performed by employees for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and require subcontractors to include a similar provision in their own contracts with sub-subcontractors that would require lower tier subcontractors to also defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims arising from their respective employees’ work;
    • Require subcontractors to provide a payment bond and/or a letter of credit to satisfy claims that are made against the general contractor under this section;
    • Require personal guarantees from owners, partners or key subcontractor personnel;
    • Include withholding and back-charge provisions that would allow general contractors to withhold or charge back the subcontractors for disputed amounts, for claims brought against them, and for failure to comply with the audit, bond, and guarantee requirements.
    • Consider implementing a system to confirm evidence of payments, such as signed acknowledgment of payment by each subcontractor and sub-subcontractor employees and by third parties entitled to recover fringe and other benefit payments or contribution, possibly working with electronic billing software providers to implement such system.
    Clay Tanaka is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing on construction, real estate, business and insurance disputes in both California and Nevada. As a licensed civil engineer, Clay has significant experience in design and construction of all types of construction projects, which he has effectively utilized in his litigation, trial and arbitration practice to obtain great results for his clients. For questions related to AB1701, please contact Clay Tanaka (clay.tanaka@ndlf.com) or Newport Beach Partner Mark Himmelstein (mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Tanaka may be contacted at clay.tanaka@ndlf.com

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    March 31, 2014 —
    Darin J. McMullen of the firm Anderson Kill explained how a recent opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows “Pennsylvania policyholders” to “more confidently challenge insurance companies’ denials of faulty workmanship claims.” The decision in Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) “reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies,” according to McMullen. “Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    February 06, 2019 —
    In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    September 01, 2016 —
    Does a CGL insurer have a duty to defend its insured-contractor during Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects pre-suit process? This answer is currently undecided and will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide. (It is on appeal stemming from a federal district court saying that an insurer does not have a duty to defend its insured-contractor in the 558 process based on the definition of the word “suit” in the CGL policy.) Why is this an important issue? The 558 pre-suit notice of construction defects process is designed to facilitate an avenue for construction defect lawsuits to get resolved without having to file a lawsuit or, at least, have issues narrowed before a lawsuit needs to be filed. (Check here for a summary of the 558 process.) It requires pre-suit notifications so that implicated parties can become aware of the defects and have an opportunity to inspect the defects / damage, test the defects / damage, and respond to the notice of construction defects; it provides an avenue for beneficial pre-suit discovery. Through participating in the 558 process, the contractor and/or design professional (and those downstream from them) can: (i) offer to remedy the defect, (ii) settle the defect, whether through money or a combination of money and repairs, (iii) dispute the defect, or (iv) advise that available insurance proceeds will be determined by its liability insurer. See Fla. Stat. s. 558.004. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    May 18, 2011 —

    In an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).

    Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precision’s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apache’s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.

    At trial, Inland “conceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.” They were obligated to additionally pay Precision’s costs and attorney fees.

    The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

    August 16, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized. In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    September 13, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that three Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, five attorneys have been included in the 2022 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2022 Best Lawyers®
      Chicago, IL
    • Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL
    • Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      St. Petersburg, FL
    • Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman