BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction safety expertCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts slope failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    “Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

    Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

    The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    "On Second Thought"

    Experts: Best Bet in $300M Osage Nation Wind Farm Dispute Is Negotiation

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

    Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More

    Attempt to Overrule Trial Court's Order to Produce Underwriting Manual Fails

    Carbon Sequestration Can Combat Global Warming, Sometimes in Unexpected Ways

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

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

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Virginia Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

    Craig Holden Named Top 100 Lawyer by Los Angeles Business Journal

    Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    January 14, 2015 —
    According to the Denver Post, another attempt to change Colorado’s construction defect laws to spur condo development is likely this term. Reform supporters are encouraged by the city of Lakewood’s ordinance, Denver Post reported: “"A patchwork around the state on this issue is not the way to go," Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said. "Hopefully, the Lakewood measure will spur the conversation this year." Lakewood’s “measure gives builders a ‘right to repair’ faulty work before facing legal action and requires that a majority of home owners approve legal action before it is taken.” However, “Nancy Stockton, president of the homeowners association at the Vallagio at Inverness in Arapahoe County, said following Lakewood's example statewide would only make it that much harder to hold builders accountable for the quality of their work.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    June 26, 2014 —
    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved a financing agreement for Larry Silverstein’s 3 World Trade Center that allows him to use $159 million of insurance proceeds to expedite construction. The agreement, which alters a 2010 deal on the project, follows about a year of negotiations and provides Silverstein with far less than the $1.2 billion of loan guarantees he sought under a previous plan that had been opposed by some board members. Silverstein plans to seek private financing to complete construction on the tower, which is stalled at eight floors. The Port Authority, which owns the Trade Center site, unanimously approved the alterations to the agreement at a meeting today. The new deal meets the criteria of not creating additional debt for the agency, said Commissioner Kenneth Lipper, who led opposition to the loan guarantee, viewing it as too risky and a threat to the authority’s credit rating. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
    Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    October 14, 2013 —
    Walls black with mold. Grass growing on carpets. The board chair of the Penhorwood condos, Christine Burton, describes the photos as “a pretty shocking sight.” The residents were all evicted in 2011 and given only fifteen minutes to gather what possessions they could after the buildings were found to be structurally unsound. An attempt was made to stabilize the buildings, but they kept shifting and cracking, exposing the interiors to the elements. The owners of the Fort McMurray condominium complex are suing the developer, contractor, and others for $60 million. Fort McMurray has ordered that the buildings be torn down, although the condo owners don’t have the funds for this. Even the funds for continuing the lawsuit are hard to come by. Ms. Burton notes “because of the evacuation and the cost of stabilizing the building so that we could go in and get people’s furniture and personal effect out has pretty much depleted our funds.” The owners “have no more money.” The condo owners are hoping that they can sell the land where their former homes are in order to recoup some of their losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    February 18, 2015 —
    Lone Tree, Colorado’s City Council passed an ordinance to distinguish its construction defect laws from the state’s, according to the Denver Business Journal. The city of Lakewood passed a similar ordinance last October. The Denver Business Journal reported that the new “ordinance makes changes such as establishing time frames for notifying the builder of a construction defect, allowing the builder to inspect the property and allowing the builder to repair the problem, with the homeowners' agreement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    November 04, 2019 —
    Claims are inevitable in the construction industry. They can take on a life of their own and come with the burden of legal fees, wasted executive time and a possible judgment. Too often the only winners are the lawyers. TIPS FOR PROTECTING MANAGEMENT AND THE BUSINESS BEFORE A CLAIM IS FILED
    1. Respect the business entity’s corporate structure. First and most importantly, respect the business entity’s corporate form. Legal entities have certain formalities like filing an annual list of officers, maintaining separate bank accounts, conducting certain meetings and following bylaws, etc. Respect these formalities. Failure to follow them exposes the owner to personal liability for company debts. And while a business claim has the potential to wipe out a business, owners should not risk having their personal assets on the line as well.
    2. Get a good contract. In most instances, a contract governs what happens and who is responsible for payment associated when a certain issue or dispute arises. A clear, well-written contract can often avoid a dispute or liability for a dispute. Actively participate in the contract negotiation and drafting process to make sure each party’s role and responsibilities are clearly accounted for.
    3. Make friends with clients. While it is true that “business is business,” people are often fairer and more willing to work towards a solution for people they are friends with. In most cases, friends will help friends in ways that people would not help mere business associates. When encountering a problem on a job, a friend may be willing to help achieve a more favorable outcome.
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary Bacon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Bacon may be contacted at mbacon@spencerfane.com

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    March 01, 2012 —

    A Cleveland condo association has sued the developer of their building, claiming that construction defects resulted in water intrusion. The K&D Group, which still owns forty units in the 160-unit building, claim that it’s a maintenance issue that they’d like to see fixed, but it’s their responsibility as the developer. Doug Price, CEO of K&D calls it a “frivolous lawsuit.” He blames a “hostile board” and told The Plain Dealer “there’s simple maintenance that they refuse to do.”

    An outside company evaluated Stonebridge Towers. According to the condo board’s lawyer, Laura Hauser, the building design and construction are to blame for the water intrusion. Hauser said that the board’s “goal through this litigation is to find a resolution for the association, the building and the owners.”

    David Kaman, a Cleveland attorney not involved in the lawsuit, told the Plain Dealer that construction litigation in the Cleveland area had fallen off from 2007, but he sees it on the rise, which he attributes to cost-cutting on recently finished projects. “If an owner moves in and two years later the wallpaper needs to be replaced because the wall is leaking, that’s a construction defect.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    February 10, 2012 —

    Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”

    The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”

    A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”

    Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”

    All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.

    Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”

    In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Construction Defect Specialist Joins Kansas City Firm

    January 13, 2014 —
    David Schatz, whose practice specializes in construction disputes and defects, has joined the Kansas City, Missouri firm Spencer Fane Britt & Brown LLP in their litigation practice group. Mr. Schatz’s expertise also includes banking and finance, banking litigation, commercial disputes, insurance, surety, employment, contract claims, and personal injury. Pat Whalen, Chairman of Spencer Fane Britt & Brown, said that Schatz “brings great experience across a range of industries, but many of us in Kansas City are particularly pleased by his construction and general litigation credentials, which will fit will with the resources we’re building in those areas.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of