BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts engineering expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts delay claim expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction code 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


    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

    Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    Thirteen Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    Everybody Is Going to End Up Paying for Texas' Climate Crisis

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    Flint Water Suits Against Engineers Will Go to Trial, Judge Says

    Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion Modernization

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Partner Lisa M. Rolle and Associate Vito John Marzano Obtain Dismissal of Third-Party Indemnification Claims

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    Litigation Roundup: “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

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

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy
    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. Leveraging 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

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    February 28, 2022 —
    The recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty. The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered.. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    March 12, 2015 —
    If you work in the construction industry in California you’re likely familiar with mechanics liens. But there’s one other type of lien available on construction projects in California: The design professional lien. So, here’s a blueprint of what you need to know. What is a design professional lien? A design professional lien, like a mechanics lien, creates a security interest in real property for services rendered by a design professional prior to commencement of construction. If the design professional is not paid, the design professional can file a lawsuit to foreclose on the design professional lien to have the property sold and the proceeds from the sale used to satisfy the amount of the design professional lien. 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

    A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

    June 05, 2017 —
    There has been a perception among some litigators that arbitration is more expensive than court due to several factors. Among them:
    • The “upfront” costs are higher in that filing fees for arbitration exceed those in court. Arbitrators are paid, whether hourly or a flat rate, and the three arbitration panels can become very expensive.
    • Some arbitration clauses preserve statutory discovery rights, basically defeating the advantage of a simplified arbitration process. Discovery wars are extremely expensive. Depositions are the most costly of discovery, and in arbitration, as opposed to court, depositions are limited or do not exist.
    • Some arbitration clauses integrate the statutory rules of civil procedure, making arbitration almost equivalent to litigation. These types of clauses do the parties no favors.
    These notions are all dispelled in a recent American Arbitration Association (AAA) study comparing the length of time in court, based on published federal court statistics, to the length of time in arbitration, based on data from the AAA. The study demonstrates that federal courts take much longer to resolve cases by trial and appeal than arbitration by AAA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Nevada Supreme Court started hearings on Tuesday, June 4 over the fate of Harmon towers. MGM Resorts is hoping to obtain permission from the court to tear down the tower, which they claim could collapse should an earthquake strike Las Vegas. Perini Corp, the builder, wants the building to remain standing in order to support their claim that the building’s flaws are through design and not construction errors. KLAS quoted one of Perini’s lawyers claiming that MGM had pursued a media strategy to prejudice potential jurors against the contractor. “CityCenter hired Cedric and Bunting to place advertisements with the media to win the hearts and minds of the community and to convince the public pretrial that Perini was, quote, ‘scum of the earth.’” If the Supreme Court gives the go-ahead, demolition would begin soon. Still pending, is the $500 lawsuit over the allegations of construction defects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    March 30, 2020 —
    Last week, the first lawsuit was filed seeking insurance coverage for business-interruption due to losses caused by COVID-19. The case, Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, ,et al., was filed in Louisiana. A New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill," seeks a declaratory judgment that its "all risks" policy issued by Lloyd's covers losses resulting from the closure of its restaurant due to the Governor's order restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans' order closing restaurants. The lawsuit contends that "contamination of the insured premises by the coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment." The lawsuit further alleges the policy contains no exclusions for a "viral pandemic." The suit seeks a declaration that "the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises." The obvious dispute will be whether the coronavirus constitutes a "direct physical loss or damage" as required by the policy. 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

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    December 14, 2020 —
    Most Public Works Solicitations Are Low Bid The process for awarding public works projects in California is controlled by the Public Contract Code. Generally, regardless of whether the public agency is the State, a county, a city or a local district, the project is awarded to the contractor who is “responsible” and submits the least expensive “responsive” bid. This is generally known as a “low bid” contract. In the context of public works, the terms responsible and responsive have very important meanings. As a result, State and local governments have gotten into very expensive trouble for not following the law. So, to understand how to best present a bid protest on a low bid solicitation, you, as a contractor should have a good understanding of the meaning of these terms. Note: There are other methods of contracting for public works that are not low bid, which are typically called “best value” contracts because the procurement process considers factors other than just price. These methods are typically used for large projects because the added complexity and expense of the procurement process only makes sense when the project is itself complex and expensive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Divine, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Divine may be contacted at edivine@porterlaw.com

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    August 04, 2021 —
    When bidding a project, subsurface or latent site conditions that are not immediately apparent can massively impact the costs of performance to general contractors. Were contractors required to bid on projects without any information on pre-existing conditions, they would need either to be assured that any additional costs would be reimbursed by the owner, or to include significant contingencies for subsurface conditions in their bids. For owners, these options result in either increased risk or increased cost—neither of which is particularly palatable. Owners therefore implement several contractual tools to minimize these risks and costs. One of these tools is providing bidders with a report on latent conditions, often called a “geotechnical data report” or “GDR”, but otherwise shifting as much of the subsurface-related risk as possible to the contractor. In theory, these reports permit contractors to appropriately adjust their contingencies for latent conditions, thus saving owners money. However, several independent and thorny issues arise where site reports provided by the owner are either inconsistent with or silent on the actual conditions of a project site. Hence owners often include disclaimers with these reports, such as noting that the report is for “informational purposes only” or that the report is “not part of the contract documents." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

    November 16, 2023 —
    On an appeal of an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in a slip-and-fall action commenced in Kings County Supreme Court, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo successfully secured dismissal of all claims by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on behalf of Traub Lieberman’s client. The lawsuit sought to recover damages arising out of injuries the Plaintiff allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell in the shower of a rental property owned by the Defendant, a limited liability company. Plaintiff alleged that the subject shower was defective, and the Defendant negligent, based on the absence of non-slip surfacing and grab bars in the shower. Aside from premises liability (negligence), Plaintiffs asserted eight other causes of action, including gross negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, alter-ego liability, loss of consortium, and for declaratory judgment. The judge in Supreme Court denied Traub Lieberman’s motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant, citing as the sole reason that the affidavits submitted with the motion were unsigned, and ignoring Traub Lieberman’s arguments pointing out the glaring facial deficiencies of Plaintiff’s pleading and that the signed affidavits were in fact submitted before the return date. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of