BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts stucco expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    Perrin Construction Defect Claims & Trial Conference

    Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Kiewit Hired as EPC for Fire-Damaged Freeport Gas Terminal Fix

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage
    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

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    May 10, 2021 —
    American cities stand at a precipice. Burdened by an overwhelming public health crisis, drained of resources by economic stagnation and torn apart by racial injustice and unrest, cities are confronting the reality that conventional formulas of municipal finance and practices of working cannot sustain our urban places. The significance of this moment was not lost on the Biden-Harris administration, which quickly advanced an ambitious mandate commensurate with the challenge: a domestic Marshall Plan called Build Back Better. Already, the first prong — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — has helped shore up city budgets, restore desperately needed funding for public transportation and keep businesses open and families in homes. The second leg, the $2 trillion American Jobs Plan, represents a bold shift from short-term recovery to long-term transformation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rip Rapson, Bloomberg

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

    March 28, 2012 —

    West Coast Casualty has announced the lineup for the annual WCC Construction Defect Seminar. This year’s seminar will be the nineteenth anniversary, and it will be held on May 17th and 18th, 2012 in Anaheim, California. They are the largest construction defect event in the world and this year’s seminar will again bring the top people in the field to address many of the current issues and where the construction defect community will be going in the future.

    The event, anticipated to be even larger than prior years, will have numerous panels and presentations on the current state of construction defect litigation. Among the topics that will be presented are “Arbitrate? Let’s See You Make Me!” “Defending Construction Defect Failure Mechanisms?An Expert’s Perspective,” and “Current Trends in Effectively Handling SB800 Cases.”

    Speakers at the event will include judges, lawyers, and representatives of the insurance industry. One event, “Meet Your Judges, A Candid Discussion on Construction Defect Claims and Litigation from the Bench?” will include judges from five states, including the Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, the Honorable Clifton Newman of the South Carolina Circuit Court, and the Honorable Rex Heeseman of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    Daniel A. Berman, Esq. and Stephen Henning, Esq. will be talking on the topic of “Social Networking Sites: Strategies, Ethical Pitfalls, and Practice Pointers for Litigating and Winning Your Construction Defect Case.” Mr. Berman is a Founding and Managing Partner of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP. He has been named a Southern California Super Lawyer for eight consecutive years. Mr. Henning is a Founding Partner of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP and Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America. Mr. Henning will also be one of the presenters on the panel “Important Court Decisions Impacting Construction Defect Claims.”

    The panel “Why Do We Need to Know Certain Things and How Decisions Are Made” will be presented by important figures in the construction claims industry, including Phyllis Modlin, Todd Schweitzer, Teresa D. Wolcott, and Lee Wright. Ms. Modlin is a Construction Defect Claims Supervisor responsible for nationwide claims for Markel Corporation. Mr. Schweitzer is an Assistant Vice President of Major Case for Construction Defect and Professional Liability Claims Services at Zurich North America. Ms. Wolcott is the National Product Manager for Construction Defect Claims within the Construction Claims Organization at Travelers Insurance. Mr. Wright is an Assistant Vice President and Senior Claims Consultant for XL Specialty Insurance.

    The event will also include a Science and Technology Fair in which exhibitors will be presenting technological problem solving and decision making as they relate to resolving ongoing construction and post construction-defect related issues while reducing costs for all those involved in claims and litigation. The fair is dedicated to these novel applications of science and technology that benefit the construction defect community but are not yet commonly available. This will be the third time the Construction Defect Seminar will include a Science and Technology Fair.

    Sessions at the event are approved for MCLE credit in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. MCLE credits vary by state; attendees can obtain up to 10.25 hours of credit in Arizona, California, Maine, and New York. Applications for several other states are still pending. Additionally, the event is also worth continuing education credits with the Florida Department of Insurance and for Registered Professional Adjusters. West Coast Casualty has applications pending for adjuster continuing education in an additional thirty-six states.

    West Coast Casualty recommends this event for anyone involved in construction or construction defect claims, whether they are a claims adjuster, a member of a homeowner board, a judge, a property manager, a construction claims attorney, a general contractor, or anyone else with an interest in this area. The event typically has more than 1,600 attendees. Those interested can register online.

    Read the full story…

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

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    February 23, 2017 —
    An aggressive effort to overhaul the aging Metro system in Washington, D.C., is producing results as it nears the one-year mark, with more than 28,000 cross-ties and nearly two miles of grout pads now replaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    December 09, 2011 —

    The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently ruled that primary insurers are necessary parties, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, in a declaratory judgment action being pursued by an excess carrier. See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. LNC Communities II, LLC, 2011 WL 5548955 (D. Colo. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 is almost identical to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and pertains to the joinder of persons needed for “just adjudication.” The Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (“ICSOP”) sought a declaratory judgment that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendants (collectively referred to as “Lennar Companies”) with regard to the underlying lawsuit brought by The Falls at Legend Trail Owners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). Id. at *2. In its lawsuit, the HOA alleged Lennar Companies were liable for construction defects at The Falls at Legend Trail residential development.

    Lennar Companies held two primary insurance policies, one issued by OneBeacon Insurance Company f/k/a General Accident Insurance Company (“General Accident”) and the other issued by American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“American Safety”). Lennar Companies also carried excess policies issued by ICSOP and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (“Ohio Casualty”).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

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

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    April 29, 2024 —
    A recent case, Jon M. Hall Company, LLC v. Canoe Creek Investments, LLC, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D812a (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), demonstrates four important things when it comes to liens:
    1. An owner can shorten the time period to foreclose on the lien, whether against the real property or a lien transfer bond, to 60 days by recording a notice of contest of lien;
    2. An owner can transfer a lien to a lien transfer bond during litigation;
    3. An owner can record a notice of contest of lien to force the lienor to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond surety within 60 days; and
    4. A contractors’ failure to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond within 60 days will extinguish its rights to pursue a claim against the lien transfer bond, and will otherwise extinguish the lien, fairly or unfairly.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    July 19, 2021 —
    A Florida congresswoman called for stricter federal building-safety standards on Thursday to prevent a repeat of the condominium collapse that killed at least 60 people and left dozens more missing in her state. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat whose congressional district includes the condo development in Surfside, said more buildings could collapse or break down as they age and the federal government needed to have a “minimum floor” of safety requirements. “We do have standards that are tangentially related at the federal level and so I do think it’s important to look into what standards should be adopted at the national level, at a minimum, because this is a tragedy of epic proportions,” she said on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power” with David Westin. “We can’t allow this to ever happen again.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker Purifoy, Bloomberg

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    March 11, 2014 —
    Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Insurance Co., * So.2d * (Fla. 2014), the issue was whether the insured general contractor could satisfy the SIR in its CGL policy with funds it received from the insurer of a subcontractor in settlement of the general contractor’s contractual indemnity claim against that subcontractor. ICI was the general contractor for a residence sold to Ferrin. Several years after completion, Ferrin suffered injuries in a fall while using attic stairs installed by ICI’s subcontractor Custom Cutting. Ferrin sued ICI but not Custom Cutting. ICI was insured by General Fidelity with a $1M SIR. ICI sought contractual indemnity from Custom Cutting. The Ferrin suit was ultimately settled for $1.6M. Custom Cutting’s CGL insurer paid $1M to ICI to resolve ICI’s contractual indemnity claim. Using the $1M paid on behalf of Custom Cutting and $300K of its own funds, ICI paid $1.3M to Ferrin. General Fidelity paid the remaining $300K with an agreement with ICI that each was entitled to seek reimbursement of $300K from the other. ICI filed suit in Florida state court. General Fidelity removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the relevant questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court first held that the General Fidelity SIR allowed ICI to satisfy the SIR through indemnification payments received from a third party. While the SIR provision stated that it must be satisfied by the insured, it did not include any language proscribing the source of the funds used by the insured to satisfy the SIR. The court distinguished other decisions where the SIR endorsement expressly stated that payments by others, including other insurers, could not satisfy the SIR. The court also relied on the fact that ICI “hedged its retained risk” by paying for its entitlement to contractual indemnification from its subcontractor years prior to purchasing the General Fidelity policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage