BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts roofing construction expertCambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction forensic expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts forensic architectCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failure
    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


    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Tennessee Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

    Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    Traub Lieberman Partner Adam Joffe Named to 2022 Emerging Lawyers List

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    China Construction Bank Sued in US Over Reinsurance Fraud Losses

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Job Gains a Positive for Housing

    Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Three Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability
    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

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    February 22, 2018 —
    According to the article “William Lyon Agrees to Buy RSI Communities $460 million deal plants Lyon in Texas and adds to Inland Empire land holdings” published on the website Builder, the Newport Beach home builder is purchasing the Southern California and Texas home builder. This will be Lyon Homes’ first venture in the state of Texas. RSI Communities works within both San Antonio and Austin, Texas as well as Southern California and the Inland Empire. It was founded by Todd Palmaer, a home building expert and Ron Simon, a building products expert and Newport Beach businessman. First time home buyers have been RSI’s main target. President and CEO of RSI, Tod Palmaer is optimistic about the acquisition “We are delighted to have our company join the William Lyon Homes organization. We have a great deal of confidence in the William Lyon Homes platform and its executive management team, and believe that its acquisition of RSI Communities will add to Lyon’s continued success in its current and new markets.” Pat Donahue who has almost 30 years of experience in home building, will serve as President to the Inland Empire Division. John Bohnen, RSI’s present Chief Operating Officer, will be the regional president in Texas. Mr. Bohnen has previously held executive positions with numerous home builders. William Lyon’s president and CEO Mark R. Zaist is excited about adding RSI’s key players to their team, and had this to say about the purchase. “The acquisition of RSI represents our most significant acquisition since our entry into Portland and Seattle with the Polygon Northwest Homes acquisition in 2014 and furthers our strategy of building in the strongest markets in the Western U.S., while also strengthening our pipeline in Southern California, as we continue our mission of being the premier Western Regional home builder.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

    May 01, 2023 —
    Washington, D.C. (April 25, 2023) - On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals by several major energy companies that sought to remove lawsuits filed by state and local governments from state court into federal court. The Court’s certiorari denials reject companies’ appeals in five separate cases, which involved claims brought by municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each municipality claims that it has been harmed by the effects of climate change, allegedly attributed to the companies’ carbon emissions. The Court’s denials effectively allow the lawsuits to continue in state court, often seen as favorable for plaintiffs due to a greater potential for jury trials and associated damages awards than might be available in federal court. Following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in a related case that granted the companies an additional chance to argue that their cases should be heard in federal court, the lower federal appeals courts in each of the five cases concluded that the companies had not established sufficient grounds to establish proper venue and jurisdiction in federal court. The Supreme Court’s April 24 denial leaves those decisions unaltered, allowing the lawsuits to continue in state court for further consideration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of George Leahy, Lewis Brisbois

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    November 05, 2014 —
    The court considered whether a wildfire (covered risk) or moisture in the soils (excluded risk) was the cause of damage to the insureds' home. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Berger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142870 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014). In May 2009, the Jesusita Fire caused damage to the insureds' home and surrounding area. The west wall of the house was burned, causing damage to a bedroom. A shed, hot tub, wooden decks and some vegetation, including eucalyptus trees, were damaged. The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass. Eventually, Encompass spent $400,000 repairing the property. 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

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    August 28, 2023 —
    In this appeal brought before the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, a housing complex owner, affirming the denial of co-defendant landscaping company’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims asserted by the complex owner against the co-defendant. In the underlying case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the exterior stairs of the housing complex where she lived. The complex owner had contracted with the co-defendant to provide snow removal services for the complex. The plaintiff commenced action against both the complex owner and the landscaping company to recover damages for personal injuries. The complex owner asserted cross-claims against the landscaping company for contribution, common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification. The landscaping company sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it, but the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims was denied. In the appeal brought before the Appellate Division, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, the complex owner, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the cross-claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Timothy G. McNamara, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at tmcnamara@tlsslaw.com

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    March 01, 2017 —
    It’s been a whirlwind since Donald Trump became President. Some might even say a tornado. Many believed (including myself) that he couldn’t win. I was wrong. Some also believed (again, including myself) that he wouldn’t make good on his campaign promises. So far, he has. While I usually don’t like being wrong, if there’s one thing I couldn’t be happier being wrong about, it’s President Trump’s promises to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. So, what can the construction industry expect under our first developer-turned-POTUS, Donald Trump, who is arguably the most exciting President for the construction industry since FDR? Where We Are Today The American Society of Engineers, in its oft-cited infrastructure “Report Card,” gave nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of D+, with an estimated investment infusion of $3.6 trillion needed by 2020 just to keep the nation’s infrastructure in “good” (note, not “great”) repair. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    New York Labor Laws and Action Over Exclusions

    February 01, 2021 —
    One of the most important methods for shifting risk in the construction context is insurance coverage. Upstream parties such as owner/developers and general contractors typically require that their downstream subcontractors who perform work on their properties or projects bring specific insurance to the table. These insurance requirements have a twofold purpose: protect the upstream parties, through additional insured coverage, from liabilities caused by the subcontractor; and protect the downstream parties by ensuring that they have adequate insurance for their own potential liabilities. In New York, subcontractor insurance coverage can have some surprising terms which frustrate risk transfer. Numerous policies contain “Action Over” exclusions, which bar coverage for one of the most significant exposures faced by owner-developers and general contractors: bodily injury lawsuits brought by subcontractor employees. It is critical that upstream parties understand the unique impact of New York’s labor laws on the insurance market and be prepared to identify and request removal of Action Over exclusions on subcontractor insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at TGuertin@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    July 13, 2020 —
    On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote

    July 13, 2020 —
    Foreseeability is a tort concept that tends to permeate several aspects of legal analysis, often causing confusion in litigants’ interpretation of, and courts’ application of, foreseeability to their cases. In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Progress Rail Services. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73967 (C.D. Ill.), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois took on the task of analyzing a case dealing with foreseeability issues to determine if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and if the damages were so remote as to violate public policy. The court held that since the defendant’s actions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff and the facts satisfied the four-prong duty test, the defendant owed the plaintiff’s subrogor a duty of reasonable care. It also held that the plaintiff’s damage claim did not open the defendant up to liability that would violate public policy. In the case, an employee of defendant Progress Rail Services Corporation (Progress Rail) was operating a crane at Progress Rail’s Galesburg location on May 7, 2018. The employee struck an overhead power line while working, causing a power disruption to nearby businesses. The plaintiff’s subrogor, Midstate Manufacturing Company (Midstate), was one of the affected businesses, reporting that its Amada hydraulic punch was damaged. Midstate submitted a property damage claim to its carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati), who reimbursed it under its policy. Subsequent to its payment, Cincinnati filed suit against Progress Rail in Illinois state court. Progress Rail then removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com