BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building expertCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimony
    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


    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Montana Federal Court Holds that an Interior Department’s Federal Advisory Committee Was Improperly Reestablished

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Construction Robots 2023

    AI – A Designer’s Assistant or a Replacement?

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking #4 in Orange County Business Journal’s 2023 Book of Lists for Law Firms!

    Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

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

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    CSLB Reminds California Public Works Contractors to Renew Their Public Works Registration

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Cambridge's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    December 21, 2016 —
    The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of the insurer's motion for summary judgment, thereby rejecting the insureds' negligence per se claim for failure to pay benefits. Braun-Salinas v. Am Family Ins. Group, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016). The insureds argued that Oregon recognized a negligence per se claim based on an insurer's failure to pay benefits in violation of the statutory standard under state law. Oregon appellate courts, however, only allowed a negligence per se claim only where a negligence claim otherwise existed. The Oregon courts had previously rejected a statutory theory, holding that a violation of the statute did not give rise to a tort action. 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

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    March 28, 2012 —

    Attempts to build “green,” reducing energy costs and increasing the use of sustainable building materials, may lead to more lawsuits, according to a report issued by the British Columbia Construction Association. The report warned those who were going to build green look into the implications. The report looked at the result of green building practices and requirements adopted in the United States.

    The report warns that “the use of novel, less harmful building material or new construction techniques may give rise to liability due to: contractor inexperience with installation; lack of long-term evaluation of green materials; lack of understanding of how new building materials may impact existing traditional building systems; or warranties provided unintentionally about the durability or effectiveness of unproven materials or techniques.”

    Manley McLachlan, president of the BCAA noted that they are aware of “legal action around the performance of the buildings,” noting that while fast-growing trees help toward LEED certification, their wood is more prone to mold. He also felt that low-VOC paints needed more testing to prove their durability as exterior finishes.

    Read the full story…

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

    State-Fed Fight Heats Up Over Building Private Nuclear Disposal Sites

    August 03, 2022 —
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Interim Storage Partners, a joint venture that gained a federal license last year to build an interim storage facility for spent commercial nuclear fuel at a Texas site, have until Aug. 3 to answer a federal lawsuit claim by state officials that a new U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminates the federal agency’s licensing authority. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

    November 25, 2024 —
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ground leases are an important – if somewhat unusual – part of the real estate finance industry. Because they typically cover large expensive properties like Rockefeller Center and The Empire State Building, to name two, and last a long time (99 years and up to start) the likelihood of something unexpected or unintended happening is high. This likelihood increases dramatically if, as highlighted below, one or both of the lease parties’ files for bankruptcy. Accordingly, real estate professionals should take note and take care when entering into any transaction involving a ground lease. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher F. Graham, White and Williams LLP and Morgan A. Goldstein, White and Williams LLP Mr. Graham may be contacted at grahamc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Goldstein may be contacted at goldsteinm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

    October 21, 2019 —
    A Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.” Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage. Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    October 21, 2015 —
    The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the insurer had a duty to defend in light of conflicting endorsements in the policy. Panfil v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14621 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015). JRJ Ada, LLC was a contractor. JRJ's two members, Joe Panfil and Renee Michelon, had a CGL policy with Nautilus. The employee of JRJ's subcontractor, Astro Insulation, fell through a hole while performing insulation work, injuring himself. The employee sued JRJ, who sought a defense from Nautilus. Nautilus refused to defend because JRJ was not an insured under the policy. Further, Nautilus relied upon the policy's Contractor-Subcontrated Work Endorsement and Employee Exclusion to deny coverage. Panfil and Michelon sued Nautilus. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the court granted plaitniffs' motion while denying Nautilus' motion. The district court first found that the policy should be reformed to inlcude JRJ as an insured. Nautilus did not appeal this determination. The court also found that Nautilus breached its duty to defend and was therefore estopped from asserting policy defenses to coverage. 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

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    April 15, 2024 —
    From grand designs to opening day, stadium construction projects present a captivating blend of high-profile opportunities and significant challenges and risks. Navigating this complex landscape is not easy, but when managed properly, the potential rewards, both in terms of reputation and finances, can make it a gamble worth taking. While each stadium project is different, some of the more common risks include:
    1. Securing adequate labor, materials and equipment based on the size of the project;
    2. Logistical concerns regarding the concurrent performance of multiple trade scopes on a single site;
    3. Protection of work in place from weather due to the large footprint of the stadium project;
    4. Cash flow issues caused by protracted change order processing, conflicting and/or onerous payment requirements from project financing entities, and reimbursement of considerable monthly general condition costs; and
    5. Meeting the schedule requirements for the project.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory A. Eichorn, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Eichorn may be contacted at geichorn@pecklaw.com