BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness public projectsCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness consultantCambridge Massachusetts defective construction expertCambridge Massachusetts forensic architectCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts structural engineering 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


    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

    How To Lock Disputes Out Of Your Project In Construction

    Insurer Has No Obligation to Cover Arbitration Award in Construction Defect Case

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting

    Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

    Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Gaps in Insurance Created by Complex Risks

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Scientists Are Trying to Make California Forests More Fire Resilient

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

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

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Anatomy of a Data Center

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2023 California Rising Stars List

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    10-story Mass Timber 'Rocking' Frame Sails Through Seismic Shake Tests

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    November 12, 2019 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    September 17, 2014 —
    Mexico is sending federal officials to Sonora state to oversee Grupo Mexico SAB (GMEXICOB)’s $150 million cleanup of a copper mine spill that the government says contaminated the water supplies of at least 24,000 people. The special commission of environmental and agriculture ministry officials will monitor the company’s pledge to clean Mexico’s worst mining spill, which occurred Aug. 6 in the northern state that borders Arizona. Grupo Mexico said last week it would create a $150 million trust after its Buenavista del Cobre operation dumped 11 million gallons of copper sulfate solution into two Sonora rivers. Industrias Bachoco SAB de CV and Ford Motor Co. (F) operate plants in Hermosillo, south of the contaminated waterways. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nacha Cattan, Bloomberg
    Ms. Cattan may be contacted at ncattan@bloomberg.net

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    November 20, 2013 —
    With the resurgence of the construction industry, another trend is going up and it’s not good. The workplace fatality rate for the construction industry has increased for the first time since 2006, according to a new report from Marsh Risk Consulting, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The increase to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 workers is attributed to “an influx of new, inexperienced workers” and that “some contractors are stretching their hiring standards to meet project demands.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    May 10, 2012 —

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.

    The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.

    The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.

    In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.

    The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.

    A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”

    Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    October 30, 2023 —
    It’s the classic tale of two cities. One city is occupied by architects and engineers. The other, by contractors. And while the cities typically co-exist relatively peacefully together, at times, they do not, such as when a defect arises that can either be a design or construction defect. Sometimes, project owners are pulled into these fights as well. There is a common law rule that when contracting with a contractor the owner impliedly warrants to the contractor that the plans and specifications are sufficiently accurate and correct. And, if you work on local public works projects, you may be familiar with Public Contract Code section 1104 which provides that, with the exception of design-build projects, local public entities cannot require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    June 15, 2011 —

    The Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.

    The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”

    Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.

    Read the full story…

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

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    July 25, 2021 —
    A federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of