BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance 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


    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

    How Data Drives the Future of Design

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”

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

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    There is No Presumptive Resumption!

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    Contract Construction Smarts: Helpful Provisions for Dispute Resolution

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor

    Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

    Housing Gains Not Leading to Hiring

    2021 Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On [UPDATED]

    Bill would expand multi-year construction and procurement authority in Georgia

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan
    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. Drawing 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

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    May 03, 2021 —
    We are proud to share that Business Insurance has named Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance coverage associate, Latosha M. Ellis, one of the magazine’s 2021 Break Out Award winners. Business Insurance’s Break Out Awards honor 40 top professionals from around the country each year who are expected to be the next leaders in risk management and the property/casualty insurance field. Business Insurance reviewed hundreds of nominees, all of whom have worked in commercial insurance or related sectors for under 15 years. Out of those hundreds, Latosha was selected as one of the 40 honorees for 2021. Latosha is well-deserving of this honor. She is committed to excellence in the practice of law and in her service to clients, both of which have earned her a sterling reputation in the Virginia and District of Columbia legal communities. In addition to her litigation success and excellent client service skills, Latosha is a leader, both in the firm and in the legal community. Latosha not only serves as a mentor to several young attorneys at our firm, but she is also a board member of the University of Richmond Law School Alumni Board (currently serving on a three-year term) and a planning member of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) professional development committee. She also co-chaired the 2021 ABA Insurance Coverage and Litigation Committee Annual CLE Conference, for which she implemented new diversity and inclusion standards and ensured several program sessions geared towards young lawyers. In addition, Latosha was selected as the firm’s 2019 Pathfinder for the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity, serves on the executive board of the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and was inducted into the American Bar Association’s Section of Litigation Young Lawyer Leadership Program. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!

    January 27, 2020 —
    As municipalities around the country evaluate changes to their respective codes in an effort to exert greater control over bad actors in the vacation rental market, Airbnb announced on November 2nd that it is banning party houses. The move comes in response to the shooting deaths of five people at a Halloween party hosted at an Airbnb rental house in Orinda, CA. CEO Brian Chesky announced on Twitter that starting November 2, Airbnb would ban “party houses” and redouble the company’s efforts to “combat unauthorized parties and get rid of abusive host and guest conduct.” twitter.com/bchesky The four-bedroom rental reportedly had been rented on Airbnb by a woman who advised the owner her family members had asthma and needed to escape smoke from a wildfire burning in Sonoma County about 60 miles north of Orinda earlier in the week. Nevertheless, the homeowner was suspicious of a one-night rental on Halloween and reminded the renter that no parties were allowed. Having received complaints from neighbors and witnessing some party activity via his camera doorbell, the homeowner called police who were en route to the home, but arrived after the shooting. The Halloween party apparently was advertised on social media as an “Airbnb Mansion Party,” with an admission fee of $10 per person. Independently owned vacation rentals are currently growing at a faster rate than hotels or motels, and in some instances are owned by out-of-state investors seeking not only a real estate return on investment, but also a return on investment associated with revenue streams generated by “pay to play” parties promoted on social media. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com

    The Burden of Betterment

    February 23, 2017 —
    The concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability. In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at ryan.charlson@csklegal.com

    California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

    December 13, 2022 —
    One of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows: The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    November 08, 2017 —
    On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1 The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase. Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    January 27, 2014 —
    According to Matthew Devries’ blog, Best Practices Construction Law, problems can arise in a case with one owner and multiple contractors: “Increasingly, two or more contractors may each have a separate contract with the owner for different portions of the work on a single project.” The problems occur when contractor responsibilities or storage sites become entangled, “for example, from one contractor’s storage of materials on a site where the other has work to perform, or from one contractor’s failure to progress with work that is preliminary to the other’s work.” Devries adds that in “addition to claims against the other contractor, claims may also be made against the owner for failure to coordinate the work.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    February 04, 2013 —
    Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    August 07, 2022 —
    Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action after it accrues. An action can be filing a lawsuit and, in some instances, filing a demand for arbitration. But a multi-year construction project could be longer than the applicable statute of limitations. For example, under Delaware or North Carolina law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is only three years.1 So a claim for breach of a construction contract that occurred (i.e. accrued) at the beginning of a four-year project under Delaware or North Carolina law may expire before the project is completed. Generally, a claim accrues at the time of the breach (however, it is important to note that this is not always the case and claim accrual could be the subject of an entirely different article). During the course of a multi-year construction project, proposed change orders or claims for additional compensation can sit, unanswered or unpursued, for months. Or, the parties may informally agree as part of regular project communications to put off dealing with a claim head-on until the end of the project. On certain projects, slow-walking a claim is understandable, as a contractor may be hesitant to sue an owner in the middle of a multi-year project and risk upsetting an otherwise good working relationship. But a delay in formally asserting a put-off claim after it accrues could result in the claim falling subject to a statute of limitations defense. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com