BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness windows
    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


    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    “You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

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

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    Affirmed

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial
    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

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    October 21, 2019 —
    This summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring. My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door. No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    July 05, 2023 —
    Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present. Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained. Reprinted courtesy of Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    December 09, 2011 —

    Applying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.

    In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.

    Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.

    On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."

    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

    Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

    January 16, 2024 —
    Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.) In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    December 11, 2023 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach attorneys John Toohey and Sammy Daboussi obtained a complete defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their concrete contractor client. This lawsuit arises from a claim made by Plaintiff for construction defects in a high-end single-family home. Our client was hired to perform concrete work on the foundations of the home. It was alleged that the home’s foundation was incorrectly built. It was further alleged that the construction defects/errors led to delays and substantial expenses. We argued that our client relied on the certifications provided to them by design professionals and the City. We further argued that our client, like any reasonable concrete/foundation subcontractor, has no responsibility or obligation, contractual or otherwise, to review and recheck the work completed by a licensed professional. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    June 17, 2015 —
    Through all its ups and downs, the U.S. homebuilding industry is making slow progress. While housing starts declined 11.1 percent in May to a 1.04 million annualized rate, it followed a revised 1.17 million pace the prior month to cap the best back-to-back readings since late 2007, Commerce Department data showed Tuesday in Washington. Permits for future projects climbed to the highest level in almost eight years. The stop-and-go nature of the rebound, which has been exacerbated by the inclement weather that brought construction to a near standstill at the start of the year, masks a steady recovery in the industry at the center of the past recession. While residential real estate has yet to fulfill its typical role as a pillar of this economic expansion, gains in hiring and bigger paychecks are brightening Americans’ moods and could lift home purchases in the second half of 2015. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    November 02, 2017 —
    On October 23, 2017, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard (Construction Silica Standard). OSHA enforcement of its Construction Silica Standard actually began on September 23, 2017, but for a period of 30 days, OSHA offered compliance assistance in lieu of enforcement for employers who were making good faith efforts to comply with the Construction Silica Standard. California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has a nearly identical construction silica standard that requires employers to limit worker exposure to respirable crystalline silica above 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air (25 μg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) under any foreseeable condition. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    July 24, 2023 —
    THE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in residential condominiums. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) § 42-1903.16(b). The warranty applies to both condominium common elements and each condominium unit. It requires a developer to repair structural defects, including any resulting damage to the condominium caused by a common element structural defect. DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(a-1)(2). The statute creating this warranty is called the “Warranty Against Structural Defects,” contained in the DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16. “Structural Defects” Defined The warranty applies to “structural defects,” which are very broadly defined to include many types of construction defects. Structural defects are not just limited to defects in the supporting structure of the building. Rather, a structural defect can be any condition that:
    “(A) Reduces the stability or safety of unit or common elements below standards commonly accepted in the real estate market,” or (B) Restricts the normally intended use of all or part of the common elements of a unit and which requires repair, renovation, restoration, or replacement to serve the purpose for which it was intended.” DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(j)(6).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com