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


    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/20/22

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    US Proposes Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Construction Termination Issues for the Architect and Engineer: Part 1– Introduction to the Series

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

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

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases
    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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/20/24) – Construction Backlog Falls, National Association of Realtors Settle Litigation, and Commercial Real Estate Market’s Effect on City Cuts

    April 15, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, bad loans outweigh loss reserves at top six U.S. banks, the FCC announces a proposed rule aimed at “bulk billing,” office-to-multifamily conversion projects grow in major metro cities, and more!
    • The National Association of Realtors has agreed to settle litigation that accused them of artificially inflating real estate commissions – a major decision that could reshape the housing market for buyers, sellers and agents. (Rachel Siegel, The Washington Post)
    • An NYU professor considers the positives and negatives of cities cutting services or raising other kinds of taxes to offset the continued faltering of the commercial real estate market. (Alan Rappeport, The New York Times)
    • Construction backlog fell in February for every size of contractor except for those with under $30 million in annual revenue, while, over the past year, the largest contractors – those with greater than $50 million in revenue – have experienced the greatest decline in backlog. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    San Diego’s NFL Stadium Dream Counts on Munis for Chargers’ Home

    June 10, 2015 —
    San Diego, still dealing with the legacy of a pension crisis that led politicians to consider bankruptcy a decade ago, may throw taxpayer money behind municipal bonds for a football-stadium bidding war. The city and the National Football League’s Chargers are negotiating on a proposed $1.3 billion coliseum to keep the team from leaving for Los Angeles. A plan backed by a city panel would have San Diego pay $121 million of the new stadium’s debt, even though it still owes $52 million for the Chargers’ current home. San Diego County would chip in, too. The quest to keep the team has triggered a debate over whether to finance professional football as the city deals with $2 billion of deferred maintenance brought about in part by mounting pension costs. The city’s retirement system has a shortfall just as large, which led voters three years ago to approve reducing benefits for city workers. Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg and Darrell Preston, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    July 09, 2019 —
    Tennessee’s Supreme Court recently held that an insurer may not withhold repair labor costs as depreciation when the policy definition of actual cash value is found to be ambiguous. Tennessee joins other states like California and Vermont that prohibit the depreciation of repair labor costs in property policies. In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mut.) Ins. Co., No. M201702546SCR23CV, 2019 WL 1592687, the Lammerts and other insureds sought property damage coverage from Auto Owners Insurance for hail damage to a home and other structures they owned in Tennessee. Auto-Owners Insurance agreed to settle the claims on an actual cash value basis (ACV), which is a method of establishing the value of insured property that must be replaced to determine the indemnity by the insurer. There are multiple methods to calculate ACV. Auto-Owners decided to use the ACV calculation method of deducting depreciation from the cost to repair or replace the damaged property. Depreciation is the decline in value of a property since it was new because of use, age or wear. The rationale behind this method is that an insured should not make a profit by recovering the cost of, for example, a new roof for a damaged roof that was ten years old, and thus depreciation is deducted from the indemnity. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    February 01, 2021 —
    On January 13, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 3360, which will enable pre-judgment interest of 9% in personal injury cases. The legislation was sponsored by Madison County, Illinois-area representative Jay Hoffman (D-Belleville) and Illinois state senator Dan Harmon (D-Oak Park). Under current Illinois law, plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-judgment interest in personal injury cases because the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s damages cannot be calculated in advance and liability is uncertain (compared, for example, to a breach of contract claim). If signed by the governor, personal injury actions in Illinois will be subject to 9% per annum pre-judgment interest accruing “on the date the defendant has notice of the injury from the incident itself or a written notice." Notably, the bill will also impact pending litigation as interest begins to accrue on the effective date of the legislation for cases already filed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Zimmerman may be contacted at Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    November 21, 2022 —
    In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth District reversed the lower court, finding that money paid by the insured into an abatement fund was “damages” as that undefined term was used in the policyholder’s insurance policies. 2022-Ohio-3031, ¶ 1. Sherwin-Williams is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to narrow the meaning of undefined terms in their insurance policies. The dispute in Sherwin-Williams focused on coverage for $400 million that the policyholder and other defendants were ordered to pay into an abatement fund to be used by California cities and counties to mitigate the hazards caused by lead paint in homes. Id. ¶ 1. Although the underlying litigation proceeded in California, Ohio law governed coverage, which raised issues of first impression in Ohio. Id. Among other things, the insurers argued that the money paid into the abatement fund did not qualify as “damages” under the policies. Id. ¶ 57. The insured argued that, because the insurers did not define “damages” in the policies, the term had to be given its ordinary meaning. Id. ¶ 56. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    February 23, 2016 —
    The hallmark of a claims-made insurance policy is that the policy only provides coverage for claims that are “first made” during the policy period. As noted by the Texas Supreme Court, “for the insurer, the inherent benefit of a claims-made policy is the insurer's ability to close its books on a policy at its expiration and thus to attain a level of predictability unattainable under standard occurrence policies.”[1] To ensure this “level of predictability,” claims-made insurance policies contain provisions stating that all “Related Claims” will be treated as a single claim deemed first made at the time the earliest of such claims was made. The “Related Claims” provision is an issue that comes up time and again – claims can span years, especially in the context of regulatory investigations, which often culminate in enforcement proceedings and litigation. This inevitably leads to disputes regarding whether later claims can be related back to the earlier claim, an issue that becomes even thornier when different insurers participate on different policy years. Over time, case law on “Related Claims” has been mixed and somewhat inconsistent, with each case tending to hinge on its own unique set of facts, making it difficult to identify a clear standard for determining whether claims are related. However, three recent decisions out of the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits show that courts are increasingly deferring to the plain language of the policy and applying these provisions broadly. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

    “Over? Did you say ‘over’?”

    December 31, 2024 —
    The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator – and not a court – is to determine the preclusive effect of an arbitrator’s earlier ruling. In the case, insurers engaged in three reinsurance agreements had previously arbitrated concerning one of the insurer’s billing methodologies. When a similar dispute occurred years later, the victors in the first arbitration – rather than pursuing arbitration – filed in federal court in Chicago seeking to have the court declare that the prior arbitration award precluded re-arbitration of the latest dispute. The insurer on the other side of the dispute moved to compel arbitration, a motion granted by the district court. The plaintiff insurers appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer

    January 07, 2025 —
    Newark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager. In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois