BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts forensic architect
    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


    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    North Carolina Should Protect Undocumented Witnesses to Charlotte Scaffolding Deaths, Unions Say

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight’s Melvin Marcia for Its 2023 Northern California Rising Stars List

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    Insurer's Late Notice Defense Fails on Summary Judgment

    New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

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

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    From the Ground Up

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

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

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    July 08, 2011 —

    KCBD reports on the problems of a Lubbock, Texas contractor. It’s hard to do the job when your tools keep getting stolen. Corey Meadows, owner of Top Cut Interiors, told KCBD that he had chained an air compressor to a table saw. Since the thieves couldn’t cut the chain, they cut the table saw “and just took the air compressor and the chain.” Meadows estimates the thieves cost him $2,000 in damaged or stolen equipment and time lost.

    Read the full story…

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

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    February 23, 2016 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2). Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien. The first question is whether the contractor or subcontractor is entitled to a lien for the work performed. Under Maryland law, “every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of 15 percent of its value is subject to establishment of a lien…for the payment of all debts.” It’s easy when dealing with new construction. No matter how small your portion of the work, the property is subject to the establishment of a lien. It is more difficult to determine entitlement when there is either a total or partial renovation or other work. The question becomes how do you determine the value of the building, and whether it has been improved “to the extent of 15 percent of its value.” Believe me, I have seen creative and some not so creative methods of calculation used by counsel to prove that certain work does or does not meet the requirement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    October 29, 2014 —
    The number of contracts to buy existing homes rose less than forecast in September, signaling demand will probably plateau heading into the end of 2014. The pending home sales index increased 0.3 percent after dropping 1 percent in August, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 1 percent gain. Home resales have yet to regain last year’s peak as still-tight credit and low inventories remain hurdles for the industry, which means residential real estate will make a limited contribution to the expansion. The recent drop in mortgage rates and pickup in hiring will probably help underpin demand, even as first-time buyers struggle to enter the market. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
    Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    October 12, 2020 —
    Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    October 18, 2021 —
    In the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers. Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located. Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    July 27, 2020 —
    The court found that the policy's anti-sequential clause barred coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2020 N.J. Sup. Unpub. LEXIS 920 (May 14, 2020). The insureds held identical homeowners policies from Chubb and Federal Insurance Company. Damage resulting from flood was not covered. The policies' "surface water exclusion" stated,
    [W]e do not cover any loss caused by: flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of water from a body of water . . . or spray from any of these even if driven by wind.
    The insureds also had separate flood insurance policies, insuring the structure of each home for $250,000. Superstorm Sandy created wind gusts as high as eighty miles per hour. A severe storm surge caused tides to rise between nine and eleven feet. The storm surge caused surface water to flood onto plaintiffs' properties and their homes ultimately collapsed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    September 15, 2016 —
    This post follows, almost two years to the day, Rick Erickson’s post of August 29, 2014. As noted by Rick Erickson in his August 29, 2014 post, the Arizona Supreme Court in the Weitz case (2014) had determined that equitable subrogation principles were applicable to enable an earlier-recorded mechanic’s lien to be trumped by a later-recorded bank deed of trust, if the loan secured by the later deed of trust paid off a lien that had been ahead of the mechanic’s lien. In a decision filed August 9, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals further clarified the scope of such equitable subrogation. In Markham Contracting Co., Inc. v. FDIC, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0752 (August 9, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a first-recorded deed of trust was followed by a second-recorded mechanic’s lien; and then, after the mechanic’s lien was recorded, a new lender made a secured construction loan that was used, in part, to pay off the loan that was secured by the first-position deed of trust. The key being “in part.” The subsequent lender loaned $4.8 million, but only $2.9 million went to pay off the balance owing on the first-position deed of trust. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    January 17, 2022 —
    First things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com