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


    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025

    11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    AAA Revises its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit

    Newmeyer Dillion Named One of "The Best Places To Work In Orange County" by Orange County Business Journal

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    April 02, 2024 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in a bathroom of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home. The claim had been reported by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing parts that had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the drainage system had been completely removed and replaced. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the original plumbing components hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal. Meanwhile, the surface conditions of the white PVC pipe appeared bright and shiny as compared to other piping. The insured had also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

    June 21, 2017 —
    The court found that the insured was entitled to a defense against claims for its alleged willful removal of coal from third parties' land. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bizzack Constr, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70285 (W.D. Va. April 27, 2017). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contracted with Bizzack to perform work in widening U.S. Route 460. VDOT notified coal owners that it had been "necessary to remove certain coal" from their land during the construction of Route 460. Some of the coal owners sued Bizzack, seeking compensation for lost coal. They alleged Bizzack had illegally removed and sold their coal, and "damaged the remaining coal in place on the property." Bizzack sought coverage from Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bizzack. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Liberty Mutual argued: (1) there was no "occurrence"; (2) exclusion j (5) applied; and (3) the "expected or intended injury" exclusion applied. 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

    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    July 20, 2020 —
    Thousands of construction and design firm from all parts of the U.S. appear on lists of companies that have received federal Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, according to federal documents just made public. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

    December 26, 2022 —
    A tale of Texas Construction Trust Account woe. You’re a contractor running a business doing interior remodels for clients in a major metropolitan Texas area. You sign up clients with a contract developed by our friends at LegalZoom and get your team to work. Three months into your remodeling project with Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients, you get this letter: “Consistent with the requirements of §162.006 and §162.007 of the Texas Property Code, Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients demand a full and complete accounting of all funds you have received from any source relating to this project.” What should you do? Should you ignore it? Should you respond? Fear sets in, you call your crew, and you stop the work. Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients become Mr. and Mrs. “irate and angry” Clients and they sue you alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and perhaps fraud. Reprinted courtesy of Rochelle Cabe, Kahana Feld and Roni Most, Kahana Feld Ms. Cabe may be contacted at rcabe@kahanafeld.com Mr. Most may be contacted at rmost@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

    April 08, 2024 —
    AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    January 22, 2014 —
    The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

    December 15, 2016 —
    I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016 The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively. The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards. To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District: Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109). The Elliott Court declined to follow Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act. According to the Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.” Civil Code §943(a). In turn, Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things. The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896. The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action. Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested. Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act. II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court: McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to Elliott, in McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder, McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act. In reasoning substantially similar to that of Elliott, the McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay. On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    October 23, 2018 —
    Oregon is the first state to allow wood buildings to exceed six stories without special consideration under the Oregon Building Codes Division’s recent statement of alternative method (SAM), which provides prescriptive path elements for mass timber construction. The SAM establishes three new types of construction—Type IV A, B and C—that allow buildings to go as high as nine to 18 stories with varying percentages of exposed timber surfaces and sprinkler system requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of