• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness roofingCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expert
    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


    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    “A No-Lose Proposition?”

    North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

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

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    The Black Woman Architect Who Hopes to Change the Face of Design in America

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    Risky Business: Contractual Versus Equitable Rights of Subrogation

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

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

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020
    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

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    November 30, 2016 —
    Who is responsible for defective design under Texas law? The contractor, under Lonergan? The owner, under Spearin? A recent Fifth Circuit decision suggests that in some cases this might be the wrong question when design responsibility is disputed. The appellate court recently remanded a case back to the district court to determine whether the contractor or owner breached an implied duty to cooperate in discovering defects in design and subsequently pricing the change required to correct the problem. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    April 01, 2014 —
    Last week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act. The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    December 22, 2019 —
    Developers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria. We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it. In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining. Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    February 27, 2023 —
    Peckar & Abramson partner Michael S. Zicherman is the author of the United States chapter of Mondaq‘s 2023 “Construction Comparative Guide.” The Guide provides an overview of some of the key points of construction law and practice and allows readers to compare regulatory environments and laws across multiple jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, and United Arab Emirates. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    November 18, 2011 —

    On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.

    The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).

    The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

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

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    August 15, 2018 —
    In Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018 K.Y. LEXIS 257, the Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether stigma damages[1] in a property casualty case are recoverable in addition to the costs incurred to remediate the actual damage. The court held that stigma damages are recoverable in addition to repair costs, but the total of the stigma damages and repair costs cannot exceed the diminution in the fair market value of the property. The court’s decision establishes that if the repair costs are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole, a recovery for stigma damages up to the amount of the diminution in the market value of the home is appropriate. Appellants Cindy and Jim Muncie incurred significant property damage to their home as a result of an oil leak originating from a neighboring property owned by the Estate of Martha Magel. In 2011, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners), the liability carrier for the Estate’s testatrix, Patricia Weisman, filed an impleader complaint in federal court to discharge its obligation to settle the third-party liability claims on behalf of Ms. Weisman. Auto Owners reached a settlement with the Muncies for $60,000 which represented the remediation costs for the actual damage to the property. The settlement release reserved the Muncies’ right to pursue a claim for stigma damages associated with the oil leak. 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

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    August 02, 2017 —
    The magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer, thereby eliminating coverage for property damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103015 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2017). Madelaine Chocolate owned a facility three blocks form the Atlantic Ocean and one block from the Jamaica Bay section of Long Island Sound. Hurricane Sandy arrived October 29, 2012. Madeline Chocolate's facility sustained significant damage to its inventory, production machinery and premises, as storm surge from both bodies of water hit the property. Operations ceased during the 2012 holiday season and beyond, resulting in millions of dollars in lost income. 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

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    December 08, 2016 —
    Many contractors contentedly accept the insurance policies presented to them by their insurance carriers. However, it is a much better practice to be an active participant in choosing the most appropriate coverage for your business and the specific jobs that you are performing. Use the following tips to be sure your company has the best and most comprehensive coverage.
    1. Never purchase a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy with a “sunset” provision limiting coverage under Products & Completed Operations liability (P&CO) to a 2, 3 or 4-year term. Why? Because the California statute of limitations for construction defect claims is generally 10 years.
    2. Never consider a “Claims-made” or “Modified Occurrence” coverage form which also have a built-in limitation as to the length or term of P&CO coverage. Example: If you purchase a claims-made policy and decide to “switch” your insurance to the preferred “occurrence” coverage form, unless a special provision is made prior to the new purchase, the claims-made coverage would become worthless after the sixty (60) day claims-reporting period.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com