BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts consulting architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building expertCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts construction forensic 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


    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    Issues of Fact Prevent Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

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

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Let’s Get Specific: Rhode Island Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Manufacturer

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement

    Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    Public Housing Takes Priority in Biden Spending Bill

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Super Lawyers Recognized Five Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    Texas Allows Wide Scope for Certificate of Merit

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    Lauren Motola-Davis Honored By Providence Business News as a 2021 Leader & Achiever

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!
    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

    Behavioral Science Meets Construction: Insights from Whistle Rewards

    September 09, 2024 —
    In this episode of the AEC Business Podcast, Aarni Heiskanen hosts Drew Carter, CEO of Whistle Rewards, and Dr. Laurel Newman, a behavioral scientist, to discuss instant rewards for driving behavioral change in construction. Laurel shares her psychology background and academic career, studying how the environment influences behavior. Drew introduces himself as a data scientist, focusing on predictive modeling. Tune in to learn how they collaborate to create motivating environments in the construction industry. Whistle Rewards is a platform specializing in rewards, recognition, and incentives in the AEC industry. It is designed to enhance employee engagement, safety compliance, performance, and technology adoption in construction companies. The Guests Drew Carter, CEO and Co-Founder at Whistle Systems, Inc. Drew is improving employee retention using data science and behavioral science. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    May 07, 2015 —
    Baseball legend Yogi Berra was famous for his pithy quotes such as “the future ain’t what it used to be,” “half the lies they tell about me aren’t true,” and what is probably his most famous, “it ain’t over till it’s over.” The last, of course, begs the question of when over is over? And, on California construction projects when over is over, or more accurately, when a project is complete, can be as paradoxical as a “yogiism.” Why “Completion” is Important in California In California, project “completion,” is important not only for getting paid, but for knowing the deadlines associated with California’s statutory construction payment remedies. 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

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    October 29, 2014 —
    This article responds to the article published in the September 18, 2014 issue of the Construction Defect Journal. It provides a different perspective to this issue, based on the author's experience with these matters during the past decade of attention to this specific challenge. During recent years, there has been much discussion about the lack of attached ownership housing construction in Colorado. The main culprit, according to several sources within the community, seems to be our state's construction defect laws. Since 2001, there has been a periodic series of legislative fixes to our construction defect laws that saw the pendulum swing back and forth between the interests of the consuming public who purchase the homes and certain protections of the developers and homebuilders from excessive and unnecessary litigation. Some say that the current state of the law is more onerous than necessary on the developers and homebuilders and it is artificially inhibiting the development of multifamily ownership housing in a time of high demand and low supply. A recent opinion article in the September 29th, 2014 issue of the Denver Post stated, in part:
    "No one is suggesting that developers escape liability for construction defects or that homeowners be denied the right to sue. But under the state's current defect laws, the scales have tilted too far in favor of litigation as the default tool for resolving disputes. And this appears to be the biggest reason for the collapse in the number of new multifamily [ownership] dwellings in recent years."
    Rather than the typical conflict between the plaintiffs’ bar (representing the homebuyer) and the homebuilding industry that has produced the "back-and-forth" nature of our construction defect laws in the past, this 2014 legislative session found new constituents and a different perspective on the issue. A broad ranging coalition that included the Metro Mayors Caucus, major segments of the affordable housing community, and the general business community came together to address what their research showed as an astonishing lack of construction of ownership attached housing. There was a continuing boom going on in the development of multifamily "rental" housing, but an even more unusual deficit in multifamily "ownership" housing. Research apparently showed that, although about 20% + of construction of attached housing was in the ownership format throughout the Rocky Mountain West, Colorado was only producing about 2%. Interviews conducted by the research group that was retained by this coalition revealed that the development and homebuilding community were not willing to commence construction of ownership attached housing because of the continuing threat of litigation available under current interpretations of our state's construction defect laws. Lenders were also reluctant to provide financing for such projects faced with the apparent real threat of litigation that could shut down their projects and materially impact their loan viability and the value of the loan's collateral. Moreover, insurance premiums to cover such claims were so high, and many times unavailable, as to make such projects unfeasible. This lack of available multifamily ownership housing was creating an ever-increasing concern over the resulting imbalance of housing options in and around the metro area, where the urban character of the metro region would need such ownership options in the attached housing format in order to address the more dense character of the urban setting. This imbalance of ownership attached housing was thwarting the advancement of "community" in the context of creating opportunities for all options of housing so important for a community balance. This included ownership options in this format that address the need for the younger professionals entering the workforce, newly forming households, seniors desiring to scale down their housing size and location, as well as the segment of the market who have limited means and need to address the affordability of homeownership. This was being most clearly felt along the FasTracks lines where attached ownership housing was an important element in originally advancing the TOD communities that are expected to be developed around these transit stops. Rather than engage the battle of creating more contention in the various aspect of construction defect legislation per se, this coalition attempted to temper their approach and address specific issues that seemed to advance protection of the consuming homeowner while, at the same time, advocating a method of dispute resolution encouraged in the state's laws regarding such issues. Normally, attached ownership housing is developed under our state laws governing the creation of Common Interest Communities ("CIC's"), including those communities where there are units that are attached and contain common elements. These CIC's will be encumbered by certain recorded documents (normally referred to as "Declarations") that structure the "community" within which the units are located and set up certain rules and restrictions that are intended to respect the common interests of the unit owners within that community. There is also a Homeowners Association ("HOA") organized for the common interest community that is charged with the management of the common elements and the enforcement of the rule and regulations governing the community. The coalition chose to address their concerns through a bill including a couple of changes in the state laws governing CIC's, which would provide further protection to the homeowner and advance alternative dispute resolution as an expedient approach to resolving disputes should they arise. Those changes included:
    1. Majority Owner Vote Re: Litigation -Rather than allowing two owners plus a vote of the HOA Board to determine whether or not to file litigation alleging construction defects in a CIC, the proposed change would require a simple majority vote of the unit owners who are members in the respective HOA where the alleged defect occurred. This approach addressed the increasing concern of unit owners whose homes are unmarketable and not financeable during the course of any such litigation. This does not prevent an aggrieved owner from pursuing claims regarding that person's own unit, it just requires a majority of the owners to vote for litigation that affects the entire CIC in such litigation. This approach also included a provision for advance notice to the owners of such pending litigation accompanied by several disclosures regarding the potential litigation and its potential impact on the respective owner. This approach to protecting the rights of homeowners in a CIC seemed to be in line with everyone's interests, while not preventing an individual consumer/unit owner to advance its own claims. 2. Alternative Dispute Resolution -This proposal clarified the stated intent of the CIC statutes that advances alternative dispute resolution by providing that any mandatory arbitration provisions that are already contained in the Declaration that encumbers the respective unit in a CIC shall not be changed or deleted without the permission of the Declarant (e.g.; the developer of the CIC). This provision was to affirm a provision that the purchasing unit owner was aware of at the time of purchase and that it follows the spirit and intent of the state statutes governing such CIC's.
    Notwithstanding the curative nature of these proposals, the legislation did not address the issue because a legislative maneuver was employed that did not allow for its consideration during the waning days of the session. More recently, one of Colorado's municipalities, the home rule city of Lakewood, passed a local ordinance addressing this issue in a similar fashion, with a few more definitive suggestions regarding how to alleviate the lopsided nature of our current state of law. Without going into detail at this time with that specific ordinance, or the issue of its ability to address matters of a state-wide concern at the local level, the point is that several of Colorado's local communities, frustrated with the inability of the state legislature to deal with the issue are, at the very least, sending a signal that something must be done and, if the state is unwilling to lead on this matter, local communities will have to act. This issue has not receded into the back room, and we will see a continuing crusade from an updated coalition to address these reasonable modifications to our state laws that will at least provide some protections to the CIC homeowner regarding unwanted litigation and some relief to the homebuilding industry from excessive litigation. James M. Mulligan is a partner in the Denver office of Snell & Wilmer, LLP, a full-service commercial law firm located in nine cities throughout the Western United States and in Mexico. The firm’s website is http://www.swlaw.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    November 10, 2016 —
    For a number of years we have been honored to be asked by California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (“CEB”) to serve as update authors for several of their well-regarded construction and real estate practice books. Updates to two of those books were published in October and November:
    • The 2016 Update to the CEB’s California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies was published in October. Covering both private and public works, the practice guide details the statutory payment remedies for unpaid work, including, mechanics liens, stop payment notices and construction bonds. Wendel Rosen served as update author for Chapters 2 and 3 which covers private works projects.
    • 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

      Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

      March 28, 2018 —
      In a recent victory in their home state of Connecticut, Saxe Doernberger & Vita partners, Jeffrey Vita and Theresa Guertin, representing owner-developer 777 Main Street, LLC, overcame a summary judgment motion filed by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The Connecticut Superior court refused to adopt the insurer’s broad interpretation of the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in an all-risk builders’ risk insurance policy. In 2014, 777 Main Street, LLC began renovations on the 27-story former Hartford National Bank building in downtown Hartford, converting the property from an office building to a mixed residential and commercial space. During the renovation, a subcontractor hired to perform the cleaning the concrete façade of the building accidentally over-sprayed the cleaning material onto the property’s windows. The subcontractor’s attempts to clean the overspray further damaged the structural integrity and cosmetic look of the windows. As a result, the owner was forced to replace over 1,800 windows, costing millions. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

      June 29, 2017 —
      The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. 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

      Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

      October 10, 2013 —
      Toll Brothers is facing a construction defect lawsuit from homeowners in West Windsor, New Jersey. The homebuilding company had a lengthy battle with the town over its intention to build the community they named the Estates at Princeton Junction, now its residents are alleging defects in the construction of their homes and the common infrastructure. The community is close to Princeton University, parts of which are also in West Windsor. Toll Brothers states that they are “working very closely with the HOA Board to investigate the claims that have been alleged in the lawsuit.” Andrea Marushack, the spokesperson for Toll Brothers would not elaborate due to the lawsuit. Among the allegations are claims that the townhomes in the development are prone to water intrusion. The complaint also claims that there were defects in the construction of sidewalks, roads, and other common features. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

      October 12, 2020 —
      The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an insurer has a duty to defend when faced with legal uncertainty as to whether coverage is owed: for example, when there is no Connecticut case law on point, and courts outside of the state have reached conflicting decisions. The Court suggested that an insurer, in these circumstances, should defend the insured, and should seek a declaratory judgment from a court as to whether coverage is owed. The issue in Nash St., LLC v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.,[1] arose out of a home collapse in Milford, Connecticut. The owner of the home (Nash) hired a contractor (New Beginnings) to renovate the home. New Beginnings, in turn, retained a subcontractor to lift the house and to do concrete work on the foundation. While the subcontractor was lifting the house, the house shifted off the supporting cribbing and collapsed. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwiliams.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of