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


    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Recording a Lis Pendens Is Crucial

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

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

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

    Insurance Lawyers Recognized by JD Supra 2020 Readers' Choice Awards

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    Court of Appeal: Privette Doctrine Does Not Apply to Landlord-Tenant Relationships

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

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

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It
    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

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    January 13, 2017 —
    The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    February 11, 2013 —
    A judge has scheduled mediation and trial over the claims of Rihanna that her Beverley Hills home suffers from construction defects. The singer claims that the previous owners, Adriana and Heather Rudomin, did not disclose construction defects which lead to flooding from water leaks in January 2010. The Rudomins did not appear at the February 7th hearing, and the judge fined them $500. They will be required to explain their absence on March 12. The mediation will begin on May 7. The trial has been scheduled for February 24, 2014, and is expected to last three weeks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    April 20, 2020 —
    Earlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:
    • The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh and Amanda Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. William may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    June 22, 2016 —
    If taking the stairs catches on, buildings with elevators could automatically get greener. The people working in them also stand a good chance of getting healthier. However, designers and builders working for owners who want to reap these advantages, will need to learn a few new tricks when it comes to how stairs get placed and promoted. They also get a chance to unleash creativity in how they are finished. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rob Finch, Construction Informer Blog

    Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

    August 13, 2019 —
    The court granted the insured's motion to strike the testimony of the insurer's expert because the opinion lacked sufficient explanation or analysis. Affinity Mut. Ins. v. Thacker Air Conditioning Refrigeration Heating, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84713 (N.D. Ind. May 20, 2019). The insured owned a market that needed renovations. The roof over an addition to the market extended from the wall of the extension to the top of the existing roof. The area between the old and new roofs was filled with blown-in insulation, so that the structural support from the new overbuilt roof was not visible. The weight of the overbuilt roof rested on top of the existing roof at the point where they met. This added additional weight on the trusses supporting the main roof. In 2014, the market upgraded the building with heating and insulation. Thacker was a subcontractor for work on the hearing system. Six gas furnaces, spaced about 35 feet apart along the length of the building, were placed by Thacker. The total weight of each unit was estimated at 280 pounds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    November 08, 2021 —
    A contractor client of White and Williams recently found itself in a prickly situation. They had default terminated a subcontractor on a major commercial project and withheld payment to that subcontractor on an outstanding invoice as permitted under the terms of the subcontract until the project was completed. Clearly irate over being terminated, the subcontractor walked-off of the project with thousands of dollars’ worth of project materials and equipment that had been paid for by the owner. While on some projects this may amount to nothing more than an annoyance or inconvenience, in this case it was a significant problem because some of the wrongfully removed materials were custom manufactured overseas and not easily replaceable. The client therefore needed to take immediate action to retrieve the stolen materials so that the project would not be delayed. Specifically, it needed to file a replevin action against the subcontractor. A replevin action is a little known but powerful area of the law. In its simplest terms, replevin is a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned. The requirements of a replevin action differ by jurisdiction. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Rules of Civil Procedure devote an entire section to replevin actions and spell out in precise detail the steps that must be taken. While you should be sure to strictly comply with the rules in your jurisdiction, here are a few general points to keep in mind:
    • Where to File: A replevin action is typically commenced by filing a complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is best to file the action in the jurisdiction where the improperly seized materials are being held. If that location is unknown, you can also typically file the action in the jurisdiction where the project is located.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    January 13, 2014 —
    The Commerce Department announced a 1% gain in construction spending, from October to November, which is the biggest gain that construction has seen since March 2009, according to The Spokesman-Review. The gain brought construction spending to an adjusted annual rate of $934.4 billion. The Spokesman-Review further reports that residential construction rose 1.9% in November, while commercial construction rose 2.7%. Government construction, on the other hand, fell 1.8%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    January 07, 2015 —
    In Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of