BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness roofingCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts defective construction expertCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Get Smarter About Electric Construction Equipment

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/6/24) – Construction Tech Deals Surge, Senators Reintroduce Housing Bill, and Nonresidential Spending Drops

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Uncover More Pool Deck Deviations

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    An Architect Uses AI to Explore Surreal Black Worlds

    October 24, 2023 —
    For architect Curry Hackett, the appeal of using artificial intelligence to design projects isn’t to build the world of the impossibly distant future. Instead he wants to mine the near present, using machine learning to generate postcards from a world that is recognizably our own, but refracted through a lens of Black history and material design. Hackett is the designer behind a series of provocations made using AI to remix Black vernacular architecture in kaleidoscopic Afrofuturist landscapes. Specifically, he’s assembling images with Midjourney, an AI tool favored by architects to imagine what buildings might look like. Hackett’s prompts result in straightforward yet surreal sets, including roadside Popeyes kiosks in rural North Carolina, homes with inflatable porches in the Florida panhandle and park benches made out of the couch from grandma’s living room. Quilts, basket weaving and other cultural modes associated with American South are the building materials for Hackett’s speculative futures. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    March 01, 2021 —
    In Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”. The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019). Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended. 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

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    January 15, 2019 —
    The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause preserved the possibility of coverage when the insurer's motion for summary judgment to disclaim its indemnity obligation for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy was overturned by the Second Circuit. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29821 (Oct. 23, 2018 2nd Cir. ) In 2012, Madelaine Chocolate suffered significant damage to its business due to storm surges created by Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate had an "all-risk" policy issued by Great Northern. Madelaine Chocolate filed a claim for property damage of approximately $40 million and business income loss and extra operation expenses of $13.5 million. Great Northern denied most of the claim, reasoning that the storm surge damage was excluded under the policy. 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

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    February 16, 2017 —
    In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    January 13, 2014 —
    Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation may be filing a suit against TimberSIL, a wood manufacturer, as reported by WRAL. The foundation built 100 new homes in the 9th Ward of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and used the TimberSIL wood in 30 of the homes for decks and stairs. Make It Right spokeswoman Taylor Royle told Richard Thompson of WRAL that they chose TimberSIL because of the absence of chemicals, which will allow the wood to be mulched and composted after it has served its purpose. However, Royle claimed that the wood has begun to rot “despite being guaranteed for 40 years,” according to WRAL. She further alleged that the manufacturer failed to respond to any of the foundation’s attempts to discuss reimbursement of their costs under the forty year product warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    January 22, 2014 —
    Issues of fact surrounding the applicability of various exclusions prevented the insurer from securing summary judgment on claims for water damage. Babai v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175336 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2013). The insured noticed water damage to various areas of her home during remodeling. Allstate denied the claim because the loss was "not sudden and accidental," but rather progressive. Allstate cited the policy provision for "wear and tear, aging, . . . deterioration," etc., to exclude coverage. Plaintiff filed suit and Allstate moved for summary judgment. First, Allstate argued that construction defects were excluded from coverage based upon the exclusion for "latent defects." "Latent defects" were those that would not be discovered by a reasonable person. There was no evidence that the water damage was readily discoverable, so Allstate's argument failed. 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

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    January 07, 2015 —
    In Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of