BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts structural concrete expertCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultantCambridge Massachusetts architecture expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    What If There Is a Design Error?

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    ASCE Statement on The Partial Building Collapse in Surfside, Florida

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

    Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

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

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    2021 California Construction Law Update

    Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams Lawyers

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

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

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cambridge's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Fannie-Freddie Elimination Model in Apartments: Mortgages

    April 08, 2014 —
    The apartment-lending units of Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac were among their few money makers after the U.S. housing collapse. Now they should help transform the U.S. mortgage industry. Lawmakers seeking to eliminate the two government lenders, which were seized by regulators during the 2008 credit crisis, see an antidote to the reckless lending that blew up the U.S. housing market in the structure of the firms’ multifamily operations, which share risks with lenders. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson and Republican Mike Crapo are proposing legislation to create a new government-backed reinsurer of mortgage bonds that would require private investors to bear losses on the first 10 percent of capital. The model for the provision mirrors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FMCC)’s multifamily lending operations, requiring lenders to shoulder some of the risk on loans they originate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Mulholland, Bloomberg
    Ms. Mulholland may be contacted at smulholland3@bloomberg.net

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    October 15, 2014 —
    According to GlobeSt, New York “Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced a settlement agreement that bars developers Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana—and five affiliated entities they own and operate—from offering or selling securities, including condo and coop sales, in or from New York State.” The settlement is in “result of an investigation by the Attorney General’s real estate finance bureau into allegations of fraud by the developers of the Mirada, an eight-story Harlem condominium.” GlobeSt also stated that the agreement “provides for binding arbitration with the condo purchasers for alleged construction defects, and requires the developers to pay $500,000 in penalties and fines to New York State.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

    November 29, 2021 —
    On November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine. The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    June 18, 2014 —
    In Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. (No. B245961, filed 5/16/14, ord. pub. 6/13/14), a California appeals court held that the insured's use of the wrong steel seismic reinforcement hooks in construction of a mixed-use building was not an occurrence, and did not result in covered property damage. Regional Steel was the structural steel subcontractor on a 14-story mixed-use project in North Hollywood, California. Regional supplied plans which were approved by the developer and its structural engineers for installation of steel reinforcements, including seismic reinforcement hooks, to be encased in concrete. During construction, City inspectors determined that the plans called for the wrong hooks, necessitating repairs to finished portions of the work and delays in further construction. This ultimately resulted in a lawsuit between the developer, Regional Steel, the concrete subcontractor, the structural engineer and a quality assurance inspector. The project was insured under a wrap policy issued to the developer, with Regional named as an additional insured. The court rejected an argument that the wrap endorsement fundamentally changed the insurance, and the issue boiled down to whether incorporation of the wrong hooks, the damage caused by tearing out concrete to replace the hooks, or the resulting loss of use, triggered coverage. Liberty asserted that no damage to property was alleged and the purely economic losses caused by the need to reopen the poured concrete to correct the tie hook problem did not constitute "property damage" within the meaning of the policy. Liberty further posited that the tie hook problem did not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy because the alleged damage was not caused by an accident. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    September 16, 2019 —
    On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

    January 03, 2022 —
    On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery. As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    March 31, 2014 —
    The owners of a West Des Moines, Iowa apartment complex received an award of $12.4 million by a Polk County jury, according to The Des Moines Register, who declared that “[i]t’s believed to be one of the largest judgments of its kind in state history.” The owners had sued the builders “over leaks and mold the owners said took years to correct.” The verdict “marked the culmination of a nearly decade-long saga involving the construction of the Westlake apartments and condos, a 300-unit complex built at 1770 92nd St. on the Dallas County side of West Des Moines during the pre-recession housing boom.” Attorney Steve Eckley told The Des Moines Register that “the settlement covers about $3 million in previous repairs, about $6 million in expected repairs and maintenance and about $6 million in lost revenue.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    July 31, 2018 —
    In Davison v. Debest Plumbing, Inc., 416 P.3d 943 (Ida. 2018), the Supreme Court of Idaho addressed the issue of whether plaintiffs who provided actual notice of a defective condition, but not written notice as stated in the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act (NORA), Idaho Code §§ 6-2501 to 6-2504, et. seq., substantially complied with the act and if the plaintiffs’ notice was sufficient to bring suit. Section 6-2503 of the NORA states that, “[p]rior to commencing an action against a construction professional for a construction defect, the claimant shall serve written notice of claim on the construction professional. The notice of claim shall state that the claimant asserts a construction defect claim against the construction professional and shall describe the claim in reasonable detail sufficient to determine the general nature of the defect.” Any action not complying with this requirement should be dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the defendant’s actual notice of the defect was sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the NORA and, thus, the plaintiffs’ action complied with the NORA. In Davison, Scott and Anne Davison hired general contractor Gould Custom Builders (Gould) to remodel a vacation home in McCall, Idaho. Gould subcontracted out the plumbing work to Debest Plumbing (Debest). This work included installing a bathtub. When the Davisons arrived at their home for the first time on July 25, 2013, they noticed a leak from the subject bathtub. The Davisons contacted Gould and, the next morning, Gil Gould arrived with a Debest employee to inspect the home. In addition to inspecting the home, the Debest employee repaired the leak and helped Gould remove some water-damaged material. 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