BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expertsCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building expertCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction 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


    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    Peckar & Abramson Once Again Recognized Among Construction Executive’s “Top 50 Construction Law Firms™”

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    Los Angeles Wildfires Rage on, Destroying Structures and Displacing Residents

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

    Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session

    The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

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

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    Breath of Fresh Air

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    How Drones are Speeding Up Construction

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

    Cold Weather Causes Power Blackouts, Disruptions on Jobsites

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?

    Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Call to Conserve Power Raises Questions About Texas Grid Reliability

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns
    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

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    February 18, 2019 —
    In its recent decision in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company, 2019 WL 323702 (Wis. Jan. 25, 2019), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the issue of contribution rights as among co-insurers. Steadfast and Greenwich issued pollution liability policies to different entities that performed sewer-related services for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) at different times. MMSD sought coverage under both policies in connection with underlying claims involving pollution-related loss. Both insurers agreed that MMSD qualified as an additional insured under their respective policies, but Greenwich took the position that its coverage was excess over the coverage afforded under the Steadfast policy, at least for defense purposes, and that as such, it had no defense obligation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    March 19, 2015 —
    Candice B. Macario of Gordon & Rees LLP analyzed the case Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, and stated that “[i]n his case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.” Macario recommended “as lawsuits are filed close to the ten year statute of repose, one area to explore in a single issue case is if you can eliminate a cause of action based on patent defects. Moreover, in multi-issue cases for several construction defects, parties should always be aware of analyzing whether issues can be identified as patent and perhaps used as a tool in negotiations, settlement discussions or pre-trial motions.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    February 10, 2012 —

    A judge has ruled that a plaintiff can go forward with her suit that she was injured by a defective archway during a birthday party. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals issued this ruling on January 23, 2012, in the case of Trujillo v. Cosio.

    Ms. Trujillo attended a birthday party at the home of Maria Cosio and Joel Verduzco. A piñata was hung between a tree and a brick archway. Ms. Trujillo went to get candy that had fallen from the piñata, during which the archway fell on her hand. Subsequent examination of the archway showed that it had not been “properly anchored to the supporting pillars to protect the arch from falling.”

    Ms. Cosio and Mr. Verduzco argued that they could not have been aware of the defective nature of the archway’s construction, as it had been built at the request of the prior property owner. The structure was constructed without building permits. Mark Burns, a civil engineer testifying for the plaintiff, said that “a reasonable property owner would have thoroughly tested the archway to ensure it was capable of withstanding such horizontal forces before allowing children to enter into the area.” Mr. Burns noted that twenty rope pulls would have been sufficient to demonstrate the structure’s instability.

    The trial court rejected Mr. Burn’s statements, finding that the respondents did not have any knowledge of the defect and that a visual inspection should have sufficed. The court noted that this a triable issue, whether visual inspection suffices, or whether the property owners should have done as Mr. Burns suggested and yank a rope twenty times. The court noted that “although a jury may ultimately disagree with Burn’s opinion, it was supported by sufficient foundation and was not speculative.”

    The opinion was written by Judge Flier, with Judges Rubin and Grimes concurring.

    Read the court’s decison…

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

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    September 17, 2014 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals has ruled that a home builder that fails to adequately compact the soil does not have insurance coverage to repair damages to the home caused by the settling soil. In “insurance speak”, there was no occurrence to trigger coverage. In this case, Cizek Homes, Inc. v Columbia National Insurance Company, a home builder contracted with a buyer to build a house. A lot was selected and the home was built. After the buyer moved in, the house started to settle, causing damage to the house. The buyer told the builder about these problems and the builder agreed to fix the problems. The builder also contacted its insurance company and requested coverage for the buyer’s claim. The insurer rejected the claim, determining that the buyer’s claim was not covered by the builder’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance. The insurer then filed suit asking the court to interpret the insurance policy and to determine whether the CGL insurance covered the claim. The court looked to the buyer’s allegations that the builder failed to construct the home in accordance with accepted construction and industry standards and that the builder was negligent in designing and constructing the home. The builder admitted that it was obligated to pay for the costs of repairs, but denied that it was negligent in constructing the home. 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

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    June 05, 2017 —
    It is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract. California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
    1. Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
    2. Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
    3. Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
    4. Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
    Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017 Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure. As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows: (e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor (1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure. This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work. Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    December 20, 2017 —
    In earlier postings, I discussed the issue of whether Florida Statutes Chapter 558′s pre-suit construction defects process triggers a CGL insurer’s duty to defend. The issue was whether Florida’s 558 pre-suit notice of a construction defect and repair process met the definition of “suit” within a standard CGL policy. A standard CGL policy defines the term “suit” as: “Suit” means a civil proceeding in which damages because of “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies are alleged. “Suit” includes: a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent; or b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    September 22, 2016 —
    In Washington, RCW 19.122 (the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act or “Call Before You Dig” statute) provides for the protection of underground utilities. The statute was recently updated in 2013 and provides that homeowners and contractors must call “811” to schedule a “utility locate” prior to commencing any excavation. Failure to do so can result in steep penalties, as well as a mandatory fee award for the prevailing party. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

    April 25, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle obtained summary judgment on behalf of a contract utility company (“Utility Company”) in a matter brought before the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of a trip and fall accident where the Plaintiff’s foot allegedly went into a hole in the grass strip abutting the sidewalk adjacent to a premises located in Queens, NY. The Plaintiff claimed that the defect in the sidewalk was caused by the removal of a utility pole at the curb strip that was not correctly backfilled. The Defendant Utility Company is in the business of inspecting, treating, and repairing utility and telecommunication structures, including wooden utility poles. TLSS was successfully able to establish that, three years prior to the accident, the Utility Company was retained to conduct a visual inspection of the subject pole. However, the Utility Company does not and has not owned, installed, removed or replaced in-service utility poles in New York or at the location of the alleged accident. Further, TLSS established that the Utility Company did not service or remove the subject pole at the accident site or backfill the curb strip. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com