BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness public projectsCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting engineers
    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 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Be Proactive Now: Commercial Construction Quickly Joining List of Industries Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks

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

    Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Iowa Tornado Flattens Homes, Businesses and Wind Turbines

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Florida Courts Inundated by Wave of New Lawsuits as Sweeping Tort Reform Appears Imminent

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Texas Plans a Texas-Sized Response to Rising Seas

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing

    Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

    Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change
    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

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    September 01, 2011 —

    This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

    In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

    The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

    February 25, 2014 —
    Issue: Does a municipality owe a duty to pedestrians to keep sidewalks reasonably safe for their intended use even if the condition of the sidewalk is an open and obvious hazard? YES Facts: Plaintiff Nanci Millson liked to walk in Lynden, Washington. While plaintiff regularly walked through her neighborhood and knew that various areas of the sidewalk were cracked and lifted, she continued to walk through her neighborhood nonetheless. Plaintiff felt that the sidewalks closer to her neighborhood were in better condition and when she reached an area a block away from her home, she picked up speed even though she was in an area of sidewalk she previously had not walked before. Plaintiff became distracted, tripped on an elevated sidewalk and fell, suffering various injuries. Plaintiff sued the City of Lynden (“City”) for negligently failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The City argued that the tripping hazard was “open and obvious”, and the trial court granted the City summary judgment. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether an “open and obvious” condition is a matter of law to be decided by the court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP
    Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at natashak@scheerlaw.com

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    February 28, 2018 —
    The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA. The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    February 05, 2015 —
    Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    March 11, 2024 —
    In response to the June 2021 Champlain Towers collapse in Florida, New Jersey supplemented its State Uniform Construction Code Act by enacting legislation (effective January 8, 2024) to strengthen laws related to the structural integrity of certain residential structures in the State. The legislation applies to condominiums and cooperatives (but not single-family dwellings or primarily rental buildings) with structural components made of steel, reinforced concrete, heavy timber or a combination of such materials. The legislation also supplements the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act to ensure that associations created under the Act maintain adequate reserve funds for certain repairs. The legislation requires structural engineering inspections of any primary load-bearing system (structural components applying force to the building which deliver force to the ground including any connected balconies). Buildings that are constructed after the date the legislation was signed must have their first inspection within 15 years after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Buildings that are 15 years or older must be inspected within two years of the legislation. Thereafter, the structural inspector will determine when the next inspection should take place, which will be no more than 10 years after the preceding inspection, except for buildings more than 20 years old which must be inspected every five years. Also, if damage to the primary load-bearing system is otherwise observable, an inspection must be performed within 60 days. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew D. Stockwell, Pillsbury
    Mr. Stockwell may be contacted at matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    May 29, 2023 —
    The court denied the surplus lines insurer's motion to compel arbitration based on Lousiana's law prohibiting arbitrations of coverage disputes. Fairway Village Condominiums v. Independent Spec. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62135 (E.D. La. April 20, 2023). The plaintiff's condominium complex was damaged by Hurricane Ida. A claim was filed with the insurer. The insurer made an initial advance payment of $200,000. Three additional payments were made bringing the total to $951,462.49, which was less than half of the proof of loss amounts submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration provision in the policy. Recognizing that Louisiana law prohibited enforcement of a policy's arbitration clause, the insurer argued it did not apply because it was a surplus lines carrier. 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

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    January 31, 2014 —
    In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014). Ewing signed an agreement with the School District to serve as general contractor to renovate and build additions to a school, including tennis courts. After construction was completed, the tennis courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking. The School District filed suit, alleging breach of contract and negligence. 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

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    January 13, 2017 —
    Construction lienors need to appreciate on the frontend that recovering statutory attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is NOT automatic—far from it. This is because the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is determined by the “significant issues test,” a subjective test with no bright line standards based on who the trial court finds prevailed on the significant issues in the case. If you want to talk about the subjective and convoluted nature of recovering attorney’s fees in a construction lien action under the significant issues test, a recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal is unfortunately another nail in the coffin. In Newman v. Guerra, 2017 WL 33702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a contractor recorded a construction lien on a residential renovation project and filed a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The homeowner countersued the contractor and asserted a fraudulent lien claim pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.31. An evidentiary hearing was held on whether the lien was a fraudulent lien and the trial court held that the lien was fraudulent (therefore unenforceable) because it included amounts that were not lienable under the law. The remaining claims including both parties’ breach of contract claims proceeded to trial. There was no attorney’s fees provision in the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the contractor was entitled a monetary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com