BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts architectural engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting general contractor
    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


    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

    Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot

    Too Costly to Be Fair: Texas Appellate Court Finds the Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Unenforceable

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/11/23) – Construction Tech, Housing Market Confidence, and Decarbonization

    Wilke Fleury Attorney Featured in 2022 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    Construction-Industry Clients Need Well-Reasoned and Clear Policies on Recording Zoom and Teams Meetings

    Washington State Updates the Contractor Registration Statute

    Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Blog Completes Seventeenth Year

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim

    Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls
    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

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    March 27, 2019 —
    The purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals. Introduction and Background Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement. Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    March 07, 2014 —
    Less than two years have passed since the billion dollar Las Vegas VA Medical Center construction was completed, and “earthmovers have begun churning the site again, this time to expand the hospital’s emergency room because the existing one is inadequate,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The new emergency room project is estimated to cost $16 million. The current emergency room’s design is flawed. “VA officials this week couldn’t explain why the ambulance parking area was designed to be roughly 50 yards from the emergency room’s south entrance, a distance that adds critical seconds to a lifesaving situation,” reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Furthermore, VA officials did not confirm “who drew up the flawed design” or who “was responsible for checking the blueprints.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported that another reason for the expansion is that the current emergency room is too small. A VA spokesman had told the journal that “the emergency room ‘was built based on the workload and the funding that was available at the time,’” yet the journal pointed out that “the number of potential veterans projected to use the center” has remained constant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams LLP Acquires 6 Attorney Firm

    August 29, 2022 —
    White and Williams LLP has announced the acquisition of a six-attorney law firm nationally known for their work in the surety and construction space. Located in Towson, MD, Baltimore County, the attorneys of Pike & Gilliss LLC will join White and Williams, marking the opening of the firm’s 11th location and extending the firm’s presence to Maryland, Washington DC and Virginia. Attorneys joining White and Williams include David Gilliss, who will serve as Managing Partner of the Towson office, Patrick Pike and Eric Korphage as partners, Joel Williams as Counsel, and Anthony Kikendall and Robert Kline as associates. “We are excited to make this longtime informal partnership official by joining forces,” said Gilliss. “Attorneys from White and Williams and Pike & Gilliss have had clients in common for over a decade and we often collaborate. This official coming together creates one of the leading surety practices in the country, offering clients a broader and more cohesive experience and extensive legal expertise.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Not Our Territory: 11th Circuit Dismisses Hurricane Damage Appraisal Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

    July 24, 2023 —
    The hurdles policyholders have faced with the appraisal process in Florida are far from over. In the past, many Florida courts have limited the scope for appraisal, strictly construing the policy provision against the policyholder. Yet, recently, in Positano Place at Naples I Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an insurer’s appeal of the district court’s ruling compelling appraisal and a stay of a pending litigation. In Positano Place at Naples I Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, the policyholder Positano filed a claim for property insurance benefits under the policy as a result of damage to the property from Hurricane Irma in 2017. After investigating the claim, Empire found that there was damage to only three of the five properties covered under the policy and disputed the amount of loss. Reprinted courtesy of Veronica P. Adams, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Koorosh Talieh, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Adams may be contacted at vadams@HuntonAK.com Mr. Talieh may be contacted at ktalieh@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

    April 02, 2024 —
    After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects. Reprinted courtesy of Fred Hedberg, Robinson & Cole LLP and William Stoll, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Mr. Stoll may be contacted at wstoll@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion

    March 05, 2015 —
    The court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar defense or indemnity for the insured's obligation to clean up a superfund site. Decker Mfg. Corp. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12169 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2015). From 1966 to 1981, Decker disposed of its waste materials at the township landfill. The landfill was closed in 1981. Decker was insured under a CGL policy for a four year period from January 1, 1973, through January 1, 1977. After the landfill was closed, the EPA began an investigation which eventually led to a Unilateral Administrative Order in 1995 in which Decker was ordered to remove drums, construct a landfill cap, and monitor groundwater. Decker notified Travelers of the EPA's order on November 14, 1995. Travelers responded that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Decker. 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

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

    August 15, 2022 —
    Over a series of policies, the insured had no coverage for named windstorms when it was removed from the policies in return for a reduced premium. Shiloh Christian Ctr. v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100959 (M. D. Fla. May 9, 2022). Plaintiff had coverage from Aspen from 2014 through at least 2018 under several year-long policies, each of which renewed the prior year's policy. The premium for the 2014-2015 Policy was $50,000. In May 2015, plaintiff asked what the premium would be without hurricane coverage. He was informed this would reduce the premium to $32,000. The insured asked for the change in coverage to eliminate named windstorm coverage and a return premium was issued to the insured for $16,545. The 2016-2017 policy was issued for a premium of $22,500. The policy indicated it was a renewal of the prior policy. The revised quote made clear that the policy would exclude coverage for "Named Windstorm." 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

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    March 19, 2014 —
    The Tigard-Tualatin School District in Tigard, Oregon filed a lawsuit against Robinson Construction for water damage to the Alberta Rider Elementary school, built in 2005, according to The Oregonian. The school district “is seeking $1.4 million in damages.” According to the suit, as quoted by The Oregonian, the school district “holds Robinson responsible for faulty construction of the school’s panel siding, windows, doors, exterior walls and more.” Repairs began in December of 2011, reported The Oregonian, and the cost so far is more than one million: “The district had to replace parts of the ‘exterior wall cladding system’ and remove and reinstall ‘storefront windows and window/door assemblies to ensure watertight performance,’ in addition to other alterations, the lawsuit reads.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of