BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness public projectsCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts contractor expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Surviving the Construction Law Backlog: Nontraditional Approaches to Resolution

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    No Coverage for Roof Collapse During Hurricane

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Bert Hummel Appointed Vice Chair of State Bar of Georgia Bench & Bar Committee

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    U.S. Army Corps Announces Regulatory Program “Modernization” Plan

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    New Stormwater Climate Change Tool

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    BHA’s Next MCLE Seminar in San Diego on July 25th

    Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord
    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

    NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

    January 29, 2024 —
    The investigation into the collapse of a Lower Manhattan parking garage last April is still underway. A Jan. 2 notice published in The City Record identified LERA Consulting Structural Engineers RLLP as the engineering firm assisting with the probe. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    April 05, 2021 —
    On March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship. Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys. Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    June 08, 2020 —
    Under the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows: For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that– (A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification. The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    June 13, 2018 —
    On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    October 22, 2014 —
    Mortgage applications in the U.S. soared last week as a plunge in borrowing costs led to biggest gain in home refinancing since January 2012. The Mortgage Bankers Association’s index rose 11.6 percent in the period ended Oct. 17, the biggest gain since January, after a 5.6 percent advance the week before, figures from the Washington-based group showed today. The refinancing gauge jumped 23.3 percent while the purchase applications measure dropped 4.6 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle Trubow, Bloomberg
    Ms. Trubow may be contacted at dtrubow@bloomberg.net

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    December 02, 2015 —
    In Brady v. Calsol, Inc. 2015 No. B262028, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed summary judgment for a raw materials supplier where there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the benzene levels contained in the supplier’s mineral spirits could have caused plaintiffs’ leukemia. Plaintiffs were mechanics Ernest Brady and David Gibbs, who used Safety-Kleen solvent to degrease automotive parts. Brady and Gibbs were diagnosed with leukemia allegedly caused by exposure to Safety-Kleen solvent during the course of their employment. In 2008, Plaintiffs sued Calsol, Inc., a distributor of mineral spirits for the ultimate manufacturer, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted negligence and strict products liability claims. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that benzene, a carcinogen found in mineral spirits, caused their leukemia. Benzene is only carcinogenic to humans at certain levels. The parties dispute the levels of benzene found in the mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen. Calsol contended the benzene levels were present only in low concentrations. Plaintiffs alleged the benzene levels were capable of causing injury. Reprinted courtesy of Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    February 16, 2017 —
    n my last post I discussed suing a local government for a substantive due process violation. In this post, I discuss a the right to procedural due process. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects prohibits the government from depriving an individual or business of life (in the case of an individual), liberty, or property without due process of law. Unlike the somewhat abstract and subjective concept of substantive due process, procedural due process is direct and objective. Generally, if an individual or business maintains a property or liberty interest, a local government must afford that individual or business notice that the government intends to deprive them of a liberty or property interest and a reasonable opportunity to be heard to contest the proposed deprivation. Unless there is an emergency, the notice and opportunity to be heard must be given before the government deprives an individual or business of a liberty of property interest. This is known as a pre-deprivation hearing. Because of the clear contours of the right, procedural due process violations are typically easier to prove than substantive due process violations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    January 02, 2019 —
    Reversing the intermediate appellate court, the Florida Supreme Court held the insurer liable for bad faith despite imperfect actions by the insured. Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1705 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2018). Insured James Harvey was involved in an auto accident in which the other driver, 51 year old John Potts, was killed. Harvey's vehicle was registered in both his name and his business's name, and was covered under a $100,000 liability policy. Harvey reported the accident to his insurer, GEICO. The claim was assigned to a claims adjuster, Fran Korkus. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com