BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts expert witness roofingCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts structural concrete 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


    You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    Wilke Fleury and Attorneys Recognized as ‘Best Law Firm’ and ‘Best Lawyers’ by U.S. News!

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

    Shutdowns? What A Covid-19-Safe Construction Site Looks Like

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    Everyone’s Working From Home Due to the Coronavirus – Is There Insurance Coverage for a Data Breach?
    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

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    August 04, 2011 —

    Colorado General Assembly House Bill 10-1394 was signed into law by the Governor on May 21, 2010, codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-808 (2010)

    13-20-808. Insurance policies issued to construction professionals

    (1) (a) The general assembly finds and determines that:

    (I) The interpretation of insurance policies issued to construction professionals is of vital importance to the economic and social welfare of the citizens of Colorado and in furthering the purposes of this part 8.

    (II) Insurance policies issued to construction professionals have become increasingly complex, often containing multiple, lengthy endorsements and exclusions conflicting with the reasonable expectations of the insured.

    (III) The correct interpretation of coverage for damages arising out of construction defects is in the best interest of insurers, construction professionals, and property owners.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    December 31, 2014 —
    Construction projects pose unique challenges, including keeping costs within budget, meeting project deadlines, and coordinating the work of numerous contractors and subcontractors in the wake of inevitable design revisions and changes to the plans. Anticipating potential project challenges and negotiating contract provisions before commencing work on a project is critical for all parties. Careful planning should reduce the number of contract disputes. This, in turn, can facilitate the completion of a project within budget and on schedule. “Changes” Clauses in Construction Contracts Most commercial construction contracts have a clause addressing changes to the contract. A “changes” clause typically requires the mutual agreement of the parties on the scope of any modifications to the contract, as well as the effect on the contract price and timeframe for the work to be performed. This results in what is generally referred to as a “change order.” Many projects have a large number of change orders, which can result in significant cost overruns and delays to the project if the contract contains a complicated change order process. Therefore, in order to minimize cost overruns and project delays, it is crucial to keep the change order process as simplified and streamlined as possible. In the most basic terms, change orders memorialize modifications to the original contract, and typically alter the contract's price, scope of work, and/or completion dates. A typical change order is a written document prepared by the owner or its design professional, and signed by the owner, design professional, and affected contractors and subcontractors. An executed change order indicates the parties’ agreement as to what changes are taking place, including approval for additional costs and schedule impacts. While the reasons for change orders and the parties initiating them may vary, all change orders have one feature in common. Effective change orders alter the original contract and become part of the contract. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, change orders must be approached with the same caution and forethought as the original contract. Practice Pointers for Change Orders In light of the foregoing, some practice pointers for change orders in commercial construction contracts are as follows:
    • Carefully Negotiate and Draft Change Order Provisions in the Original Contract. A carefully negotiated and drafted “changes” clause that accounts for “unexpected circumstances” or “hidden conditions” can protect the parties from downstream costly disputes.
    • Immediately Address Changes by Following the Change Order Process, Including Obtaining Necessary Signatures. Regardless if you are an owner, general contractor or subcontractor, you should address any proposed change order immediately. Even if a decision maker gives “verbal” approval to go ahead with changed work, the work should not proceed without following the change order process in the original contract. This includes making sure to obtain any necessary signatures for the change order, if at all possible.
    • Analyze the Plans and Specifications to Determine Whether “Changes” are Within the Scope of the Original Contract, or Whether They are Extra Work. Prior to entering an original contract, it is imperative that the parties review the plans and specifications for ambiguities regarding work included in the original contract, versus potential extra work that would require a change order. This is important because a careful review of the plans and specifications sometimes reveals that work believed to be a change order is, in fact, original work, or vice versa.
    • Make Sure Requests and Approvals for Change Orders are Done by an Authorized Representative. When a party requests or gives its approval to a change order, it is important to confirm the request or approval came from an authorized representative.
    • Avoid Vague and Open-Ended Change Orders. Indeed, the vaguer a change order, the more likely it can lead to a dispute. Vague and open-ended change orders, including change orders that provide for payment on a time and materials basis, can be difficult for an owner to budget and schedule. This can lead to disputes as to cost and/or time extensions.
    • Oral Assurances for Payment Without a Signed Change Order May Not Be Recoverable. When a party provides verbal assurances to another party for extra work without following the change order process, there is a much higher likelihood that disputes will occur. Although there is case law that may allow a contractor to recover for extra work in private contracts based on oral promises, the parties should avoid placing themselves in such a legal position. Notably, in public contracts, a contractor may not be able to recover for any extra work without a signed changed order, even with verbal assurances of payment from the owner.
    About the Author: John E. Bowerbank, Newmeyer & Dillion Mr. Bowerbank is a partner in the Newport Beach office and practices in the areas of business, insurance, real estate, and construction litigation. You can reach John at john.bowerbank@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    March 01, 2021 —
    The “Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys” is a document jointly promulgated by the American Land Title Association (ALTA), representing the title insurance industry, and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS), representing professional land surveyors, which describes the uniform minimum standards with which surveyors must comply when preparing a survey to be used by a title insurance company for the purpose of deleting the general survey exception from ALTA title policy forms. The first such set of standards was developed in 1962 and has since been revised 10 times. The standards are currently updated every five years and are relied on by real estate professionals, including purchasers, lenders, title insurers and their attorneys, nationwide. In October 2020, a joint committee comprising representatives of both ALTA and NSPS adopted the “2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys,” which will become effective on February 23, 2021. The significant changes between the 2021 standards and the previous 2016 standards are summarized below. Survey Matters The 2021 standards clarify that only survey-related matters must be summarized on the survey. This revision was intended to foreclose a practice common among some institutional lenders to require that the survey list all items shown in Schedule BII of the title commitment on the face of the survey regardless of whether those items may in fact be survey related. The 2021 standards also add a requirement that the surveyor include a note specifying whether the location of a right of way, easement or other survey-related matter is shown on the survey. This change incorporates common lender and purchaser requirements that were not previously enumerated in the survey standards. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Josh D. Morton, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Morton may be contacted at josh.morton@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    November 05, 2014 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Jim Fullerton. Jim is the President of the law firm of Fullerton & Knowles, P.C., which has attorneys licensed in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, is a Martindale Hubbell Peer Rated Lawyer AV® Preeminent.™ The firm represents owners, lenders, design professionals, suppliers, subcontractors, general contractors and other members of the real estate and construction industries, filing mechanic’s liens, surety bond and other construction claims across all of the states in the Mid Atlantic region. He also represents creditors in bankruptcy issues nationwide, particularly defense of bankruptcy preference claims; advises owners and lenders in real estate lending and acquisition transactions; on all real estate and construction law issues; contract formation and disputes. The firm’s Construction Law Survival Manual is well known and widely used by participants in the construction process. The 550 page manual provides valuable information about construction contract litigation, mechanic’s liens, payment bond claims, bankruptcy and credit management and contains over 30 commonly used contract forms. All of this information and recent construction law issues are constantly updated on the firm’s website. There are two changes to the Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code that became effective September 2014. First, residential properties built by an owner for their own residence will now have a defense of payment to subcontractor mechanic’s liens. This protects homeowners from mechanic’s liens if they have paid their general contractors in full. Second, construction loan open end mortgages will have priority over mechanic’s liens, as long as at least sixty per cent (60%) of the loan proceeds are used for construction costs. This change was pushed by Pennsylvania lenders in response to a recent court case. 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

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    September 30, 2011 —

    In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

    Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

    Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

    On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    July 30, 2019 —
    In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    October 29, 2014 —
    When California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects. Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought. And it’s no ordinary drought. According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties. The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter

    February 18, 2015 —
    In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. v. Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co. (filed 2/4/2015, B24899 and B247258), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that the insurer of Costco Wholesale Corporation, in a subsequent indemnity action, could offer expert opinions which were not developed by the third-party plaintiff’s experts in an underlying dispute. Jack Daer filed suit against Costco and Yokohama Tire Corporation, alleging a tire manufactured by Yokohama (and sold by Costco), was defective and caused an accident resulting in Mr. Daer’s injuries. The case proceeded through expert discovery and depositions. On the first day of trial, Costco settled with Daer for $5.5 million, and Yokohama settled for $1.1 million. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of