BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestrationCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts eifs 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


    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

    How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties Is Critical

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    Wilke Fleury Welcomes New Civil Litigation Attorney

    Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

    White and Williams LLP Acquires 6 Attorney Firm

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden

    Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    Is Modular Construction Destined to Fail?

    Points on Negotiating Construction Claims

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    July 31, 2013 —
    A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    September 04, 2018 —
    A Guide for Maryland Condominium Associations Newly constructed and newly converted condominiums in Maryland often contain concealed or “latent” construction defects. Left undetected and unrepaired, latent defects stemming from the original construction of a condominium can cause extensive damage over time, requiring associations to assess their members for unanticipated repair costs that could have been avoided by making timely developer warranty claims. This article provides a general overview of how Maryland condominium associations transitioning from developer control can proactively identify and resolve construction defect claims with condominium developers and builders before warranty and other legal rights expire. This proactive approach typically results in an amicable resolution without the need for litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    October 30, 2013 —
    The Nevada Speaker says that AB401 gives contractors what they want, but a contractors’ group has asked a Senate committee to kill the bill. Supporters of AB 401 say that it clarifies what qualifies as a construction defect and shortens the statute of limitations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    July 20, 2020 —
    In a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines). In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle. Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

    June 21, 2024 —
    A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    June 10, 2015 —
    Applying the manifestation trigger, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed denial of coverage where the property damage manifested after the policy period expired. Landry v. Williamson, 2015 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 213 (La. Ct. App. May 1, 2015). On August 28, 2002, the Burkarts purchased a home from the Williamsons. One month later, water started leaking into the home during periods of rainfall. Suit was filed against the contractor, who was insured by Scottsdale. Scottsdale, who was added as a defendant, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it did not insure the developer at the time the alleged property damage occurred. Scottsdale's policy expired on August 1, 2002. The trial court granted Scottsdale's motion, finding coverage under its policy was not triggered because no property damage occurred during the policy period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    July 18, 2018 —
    New Jersey is the latest to join the list of states that have enacted or are considering enacting legislation that would authorize policyholders to file civil suits against first-party insurers for unfair business practices, such as unreasonably delaying or denying benefit payments, engaging in false advertising, or otherwise committing a wide range of unfair or deceptive practices. On June 7, the New Jersey Senate passed a bill entitled the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Act would create a new statutory cause of action pursuant to which a first-party insurer would be liable for bad faith based on a single statutory violation, thereby entitling an aggrieved policyholder to collect triple damages and attorneys’ fees. The proposed legislation is now before the state’s General Assembly for further consideration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    December 15, 2016 —
    Calling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1] In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Burrows may be contacted at burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com