BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witness windowsCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting engineersCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts stucco 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


    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Be Mindful Accepting Payment When Amounts Owed Are In Dispute

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

    Construction Defect Claim Survives Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion Due to Lack of Evidence

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

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

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    Florida’s “Groundbreaking” Property Insurance Reform Law

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Congratulations to BWB&O Partner John Toohey and His Fellow Panel Members on Their Inclusion in West Coast Casualty’s 2022 Program!

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

    Five Actions Construction and Energy Risk Managers Can Take to Avoid the Catastrophic Consequences of a Cyber Attack

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    Insurance and Your Roof

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado
    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

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    March 26, 2014 —
    Sarah Schottenstein purchased a New York condo for $1.65 million, and claimed that “she wound up getting a moldy, mouse-infested mess,” according to DNAinfo New York. Schottenstein alleged that “within a month of moving in she found her apartment was infested with mice, had toxic mold growing beneath her floors, brown water coming from the tap and leaks from the ceiling, according to court documents.” According to DNAinfo New York, “Microecologies Inc., an environmental health firm, found 'very heavy levels' of the infectious mold Aspergillus Chaetomium under the floor of Schottenstein's apartment.” However, Larry Pittinsky, an attorney for the condo board, told DNAinfo New York that “the case was "about a woman trying to escape her obligation to pay money.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    January 13, 2020 —
    Syed Ahmad, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice, has volunteered to serve as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee. The Minority Trial Lawyer Committee (MTL) serves as a resource for minority litigators, in-house counsel and law students, aiming to foster professional development, legal scholarship, advocacy and community involvement. As Chair of the Programming Subcommittee, Syed, who was named to Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List earlier this year, will help advance MTL’s mission of facilitating discussions about diversity and the law and providing career network opportunities for minority trial lawyers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    December 18, 2022 —
    General conditions and general requirements are terms of art in the construction industry that describe the indirect costs necessary to complete a construction project. After physical loss or damage to a project, the following question often arises: Are “general conditions” and “general requirements” covered under a builder’s risk policy? General Conditions vs. General Requirements General conditions are usually described as the cost of managing a construction project. Examples include salaries for personnel like project managers, supervisors, engineers, field office staff, as well as the cost of field trailers, office equipment and supplies, and anything necessary to support the staff. General requirements are the non-management indirect costs of executing the project, including items such as pre-development costs, permits, security, dumpsters, fences, temporary lighting, worker amenities, and clean-up costs. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?

    September 26, 2022 —
    Recent research I did on a case led me to the conclusion that Arizona law recognizes foreign litigation (i.e., a lawsuit filed outside of Arizona) as a justification for the recording of a lis pendens against real property located within Arizona. See TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream, 198 Ariz. 268 (Ct. App. 2000). Apparently, there’s some debate about whether foreign litigation can support a local lis pendens. See Boca Petroco, Inc. v. Petroleum Realty II, 285 Ga. 487 (Ga. 2009). As noted in the TWE case, Arizona’s lis pendens statute (A.R.S. 12-1191) does not discriminate between local or foreign “actions.” As such, if litigation is pending anywhere that affects Arizona real property, a lis pendens can (and probably should) be filed. Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    August 20, 2019 —
    This is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss. Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship. If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work. For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Hearst may be contacted at Brian.Hearst@lockton.com

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    November 19, 2021 —
    One of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial. Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both. Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable. This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides. A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two. The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable. The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential. The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps. Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers. BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEIL
    Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at mkennedy@berdingweil.com

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    October 15, 2014 —
    The court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014). The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products. Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium. 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

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    October 18, 2021 —
    The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., which ranks as one of the industry’s largest contractors, has been accused in a federal civil rights lawsuit of creating a racially hostile work environment at a Tennessee project site and of retaliating against employees who complained. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at https://www.enr.com/leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of