BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction cost estimating expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineering 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


    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

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

    Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    As Natural Gas Expands in Gulf, Residents Fear Rising Damage

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

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

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Fracking Fears Grow as Oklahoma Hit by More Earthquakes Than California

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    Fannie-Freddie Elimination Model in Apartments: Mortgages

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses

    Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

    December 02, 2019 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 2, 2019. In a Per Curiam opinion, the court denied petitions challenging the Commission’s orders permitting the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline which extends from northern Pennsylvania across the Carolinas into Alabama. The expansion is called the “Atlantic Sunrise Project.” In February 2017, FERC approved the expansion, and denied various petitions, filed by environmental organizations and affected landowners, who then challenged the decision in the DC Circuit. However, the court concluded, on the basis of the administrative record, that these challenges “cannot surmount the deferential standards of agency review and binding DC Circuit precedent.” Under the law, the Commission must consider whether the projected pipeline project meets a market need, and whether the public benefits outweigh the harms. If both criteria are satisfied, FERC will, as in this instance, issue a certificate authorizing the pipeline’s construction, and that certificate also empowers the certificate holder to exercise eminent domain authority under to the Natural Gas Act when necessary. It was the latter consequence of the FERC’s determinations that caused several Pennsylvania landowners to file their objections with the Commission and seek to stay construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    October 04, 2021 —
    The following is a statement by Tom Smith, Executive Director, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): WASHINGTON, DC. – Today, American families and businesses are paying the price while the House plays politics and fails to pass the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a historic piece of legislation that would have monumental impacts on the economy, public safety, global competitiveness, and each American's well-being. After decades of kicking the can down the road on meaningful infrastructure legislation, Congress is missing an extraordinary chance to reverse this unsustainable trend with passage of the IIJA, instead choosing to allow critical projects to be delayed. This legislation was passed in a strong vote by the Senate on August 10th, and almost two months later, it sits on the sidelines as the federal program for transit, roads, and bridges expired on September 30th and projects come grinding to a halt. While other countries are making investments in their future, we are letting politics steal this opportunity to move forward. It does not have to be this way. This comprehensive bill would bring relief to communities facing strained power grids, aging bridges, leaking water pipes, and spotty broadband. American families do not want to have to wonder if their power will stay on in the next storm, if the bridge connecting their community will close for emergency repairs, or if a week of virtual school means their child will miss out. We urge the House to pass this bipartisan, commonsense legislation today to create jobs, make goods and services move more quickly and reliably, and make American communities more climate-resilient. Our infrastructure bill has come due, and now is the time to act. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    September 03, 2014 —
    According to an article in JD Supra Business Advisor (written by Mark S. DePillis, Carl G. Roberts, Benjamin M. Schmidt, and Matthew White of Ballard Spahr LLP), “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a builder’s implied warranty of habitability extends only to the initial buyer of a home, and not to subsequent purchasers.” This reversed an earlier ruling in Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc. “that created more expansive liability for home builders.” DePillis, Roberts, Schmidt, and White suggested that “builders should monitor possible future legislation addressing the public policy issues that the Supreme Court identified as falling squarely within the legislature’s domain.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    May 22, 2023 —
    “It’s none of your business.” So said a construction surety resisting discovery of its underwriting file in the context of the surety’s affirmative $2 million indemnity claim (on a $25M bond), and a Missouri federal court agreed. In response to the surety’s indemnity suit, the defaulted principal contractor and additional corporate indemnitors offered up defenses of “lack of consideration and the doctrine of unclean hands, laches, waiver and/or estoppel, among others.” The indemnitors also issued written discovery to the surety seeking to obtain the surety’s underwriting file – which would reveal the underpinnings of the surety’s decision to issue the bond to the contractor – asserting “that the underwriting and due diligence documents are relevant to the[] lack of consideration defense. [Indemnitors] claim that ‘[t]his defense is based on Defendants' belief that Plaintiff did not conduct any reasonable inquiry into any Defendants' ability to pay or financial resources and therefore Plaintiff did not rely on the financial condition of each Defendant in determining whether to issue the bonds.’" 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

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    October 15, 2014 —
    Canadian existing home sales fell from a four-year high in September (TNBHICY%), the first decline in eight months, led by Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta. Sales fell 1.4 percent to 41,666 units, the Canadian Real Estate Association said today from Ottawa. From a year earlier sales rose 10.6 percent and the average price climbed 5.9 percent to C$408,795 ($362,100). The decline came in part because of a shortage of “affordably priced single family homes,” Beth Crosbie, CREA President, said in the report. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Quinn, Bloomberg
    Mr. Quinn may be contacted at gquinn1@bloomberg.net

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    March 05, 2015 —
    OSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations. OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    December 04, 2023 —
    A recent appellate opinion starts off, “This is a typical South Florida construction dispute.” (See case citation at the bottom) Let’s see, is it? No. It’s a garden variety payment dispute where the parties did NOT have a binding contract. Why? That’s for a different day (because the smart practice is ALWAYS to have a contract!) but it touches on the equitable, unjust enrichment claim. And it touches on competing unjust enrichment claims and the apportionment of those claims. In other words, can both parties be right on their unjust enrichment claims? An owner hired a general contractor for home renovations. Work started but the relationship soured and the general contractor did not complete the work. The general contractor filed a payment dispute against the owner based on unpaid invoices. It pled alternative theories of recovery against the owner: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The owner filed a counterclaim against the general contractor for the same claims. During the non-jury trial, the general contractor presented unpaid invoices along with testimony that the invoices represented the value of services rendered. The owner presented evidence of the completion of work damages. 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

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    October 14, 2013 —
    The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of