BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting engineersCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts forensic architect
    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


    Irvine Partner Cinnamon J. Carr and Associate Brittney H. Aquino Prevail on Summary Judgment

    Five Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2021

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    ASCE Statement on Passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    FAA Plans Final Regulation on Commercial Drone Use by Mid-2016

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    A Landlord’s Guide to the Center for Disease Control’s Eviction Moratorium

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Understanding the Miller Act

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

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

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Recycling Our Cities, One Building at a Time

    Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    “Bound by the Bond”

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    How the Parking Garage Conquered the City

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides

    Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

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

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?
    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

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    October 23, 2018 —
    Tutor Perini is struggling to shake off long-running concerns over the hundreds of millions in unbilled costs that have been on the contractor’s balance sheet for years. The Sylmar, Calif.-based construction giant reported more than $1 billion in unbilled costs or receivables at the end of the second quarter, up by more than $100 million from the start of the year, according to the company’s federal filings. That was $100 million higher than at the end of 2016, when the amount was $832 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    April 06, 2016 —
    An assignment of policy rights made before the policy was issued was ineffective. W. Alliance Bank v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19936 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016). The bank issued a loan to Sorrento Networks, Inc. in 2011. As collateral, Sorrento gave the bank a continuing security interest in all of Sorrento's personal property, including its inventory, commercial tort claims and insurance proceeds. The loan agreement authorized the back to act on Sorrento's behalf in collecting any money owed to Sorrento and prosecuting any claims that Sorrento might have. 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

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    October 16, 2018 —
    Economic damages, unlike non-economic damages (such as those in personal injury disputes), need to rest on a reasonable basis. Economic damages are those routinely seen in a construction dispute. These damages cannot be based on conjecture or guesswork and need to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, the economic damages will be deemed too speculative because they are not reasonably quantifiable. I recently discussed a case involving the professional boxer Canelo Alvarez that was sued by a former promoter for unjust enrichment. Although the promoter recovered a jury verdict for unjust enrichment damages against Canelo Alvarez, the verdict was reversed because the methodology utilized by the promoter to demonstrate damages was speculative. This is definitely not what a plaintiff wants to happen after prevailing at the trial level! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    April 03, 2013 —
    Unable to discern the meaning of a provision stating that payment of damages would be made "through a trial but not any appeal", the court found an ambiguity.Parker v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9085 (D. Ore. Jan. 23, 2013). The homeowners sued the general contractor for defective construction of their home. In November 2008, the homeowners reached a settlement through mediation with the general contractor. The general contractor's claims under its policies with American Family and Mid-Continent were assigned to the homeowners. The homeowners then sued both insurers for breach of insurance contract and/or equitable contribution. American Family moved for summary judgment, claiming the homeowners did not prove their damages claim against the general contractor "through a trial but not any appeal." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    May 19, 2014 —
    Elevators break down, ceilings leak and security is lax at the Metro North apartments overlooking the East River in Harlem, says retired rehabilitation technician Bob Montesi, who’s lived there for more than three decades. Even as deterioration accelerates at the 761-unit complex, which used to be in a state affordable-housing program, some tenants are facing rent increases of as much as 80 percent. For Montesi, 74, who worked at a New York City-run hospital for 41 years, the changes are especially galling. One of the owners of the building is his pension fund. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Martin Z. Braun, Bloomberg
    Mr. Braun may be contacted at mbraun6@bloomberg.net

    Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

    October 19, 2020 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy. In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.” The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

    June 06, 2018 —
    rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. 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

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    September 07, 2020 —
    The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
    Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com