BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts roofing construction expertCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect 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


    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Supreme Court Opens Door for Challenges to Older Federal Regulations

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

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

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Renovation Makes Old Arena Feel Brand New

    Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured

    No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

    Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

    US Moves to Come Clean on PFAS in Drinking Water

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Two Injured in Walkway Collapse of Detroit Apartment Complex

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Picketing Threats

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

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

    Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

    Mitigating Mold Exposure in Manufacturing and Multifamily Buildings

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit
    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

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    March 18, 2019 —
    National law firm Wood, Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced the opening of its North Carolina office, bringing the total number of offices nationwide to 24. Leading this office is prominent trial attorney William Silverman. Mr. Silverman enjoys a well deserved reputation for consistent results throughout the Carolinas in complex commercial litigation. His practice areas include construction and corporate disputes, insurance coverage, first and third party insurance bad faith litigation, environmental, and catastrophic injury matters. He is an “AV Preeminent” rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell, and has been listed in Business North Carolina’s Legal Elite in the Young Guns and Construction categories. Mr. Silverman comes to the Firm from a seven year tenure at Wall Templeton, where he served as a Shareholder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Silverman, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
    Mr. Silverman may be contacted at wsilverman@wshblaw.com

    Bill would expand multi-year construction and procurement authority in Georgia

    March 06, 2023 —
    A bill introduced in the General Assembly would modify the authority of state and local governments, as well as school systems, to enter multi-year contracts for construction and procurement. In many prior posts, we have addressed state and local governments’ authority to enter guaranteed energy savings performance contracts and multi-year contracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    April 25, 2011 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.

    The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”

    Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”

    After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”

    The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“

    In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”

    Read the trial court’s decision…

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

    Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    December 23, 2023 —
    In an ideal world, parties would have written contracts. In reality, parties should endeavor to ensure every transaction they enter into is memorialized in a written contract. This should not be disputed. Of course, written contracts are not always the case. Parties enter transactions too often whereby the transaction is not memorialized in a clean written agreement. Rather, it is piecemealing invoices, or texts, or discussions, or proposals and the course of business. A contract can still exist in this context but it is likely an oral contract. Keep in mind if there is a dispute, what you think the oral contract says will invariably be different than what the other party believes the oral contract says. This “he said she said” scenario gets removed, for the most part, with a written contract that memorializes the written terms, conditions, and scope. A recent federal district court opinion dealt with the alleged breach of an oral contract. In Movie Prop Rentals LLC vs. The Kingdom of God Global Church, 2023 WL 8275922 (S.D.Fla. 2023), a dispute concerned the fabrication and installation of a complex, modular stage prop to be used for an event. But here lies the problem. The dispute was based on an oral contract and invoices. The plaintiff, the party that was fabricating the modular stage prop, sued the defendant, the party that ordered the stage prop for the event, for non-payment under various claims. The defendant countersued under various claims. 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

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 —

    The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.

    The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”

    In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”

    Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…

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

    Spencer Mayer Receives Miami-Dade Bar Association's '40 Under 40' Award

    March 04, 2024 —
    Miami, Fla. (February 23, 2024) – Miami Associate Spencer Mayer received the 2024 Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyers Section’s '40 under 40' Award at the association's annual "Miami Nights" event on February 22. Mr. Mayer serves on the Board of Directors of the Miami Dade Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section. Lewis Brisbois was a proud sponsor of this event, which raised funds for the organization's community service initiatives and pro bono programming. Mr. Mayer is a member of the General Liability Practice. His practice focuses on all aspects of civil litigation, including complex commercial litigation, products liability, premises liability, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and insurance coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    December 20, 2012 —
    The Pennsylvania courts have long held that there is an implied warranty of habitability for the initial purchaser of a home. Now, as some defects may not immediately show up, the court has extended that implied warranty to second and subsequent purchasers. As Marc D. Brookman, David I. Haas, and Christopher Bender of Duane Morris note, “this judicially created doctrine shifts the risk of a latent defect in the construction of a new home from the purchaser to the builder-vendor.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a contractual relationship is not needed for an implied warranty of habitability. The court’s concern was inequalities would result when a home was sold while other homes were protected by being within the statute of repose. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!

    April 15, 2024 —
    Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach of BWB&O’s San Diego office started a trial in San Diego set to last at least five weeks. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action of negligence, trespass and nuisance against BWB&O’s client, arguing the owner/property manager did not properly handle alleged overwatering of the front yard, allegedly resulting in a landslide impacting 8 homes on a City slope in Carlsbad. Cross-Complainant City alleged independent negligence to fix the slope it owned and controlled as well as various indemnity-based causes of action against BWB&O’s client. Plaintiffs claimed over $24 million in damages, while Cross-Complainant placed sole blame for the incident on BWB&O’s client around $6 million. Heading into trial, it was made clear that neither Plaintiffs nor Cross-Complainant would accept anything less than 7-figures to settle BWB&O’s client out of the case. In the first week of trial, BWB&O was able to leverage motions in limine, opening statements, and cross-examinations to secure a dismissal of three of the four causes of action alleged by Plaintiff that were associated with pain & suffering. In the second week of trial, BWB&O secured a dismissal of Cross-Complainant’s negligence cause of action paving the way for a settlement with Plaintiffs. Leveraging the threat of a non-suit when Plaintiffs rested, BWB&O secured resolution of Plaintiffs’ complaint for a fraction of what had previously been sought. Finally, BWB&O was able to secure a dismissal of the remaining indemnity-based causes of action in the cross-complaint and fully extract the client from the matter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP