BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expertsCambridge Massachusetts construction defect 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


    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/08/23) – Buy and Sell With AI, Urban Real Estate Demand and Increasing Energy Costs

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    10-story Mass Timber 'Rocking' Frame Sails Through Seismic Shake Tests

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    When Customers Don’t Pay: What Can a Construction Business Do

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Changes to Judicial Selection in Mexico Create a New Case for Contractual ADR Provisions

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid

    A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    Park Avenue Is About to Get Something It Hasn’t Seen in 40 Years

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces
    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

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    December 02, 2015 —
    In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose. Background Facts Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield

    May 10, 2013 —
    Low inventories and low mortgage rates are leading developers to build new homes in Bakersfield, California. According to KGET, home permits are up forty-five percent over last April. In one development, a street of six homes all sold on the same day. Indications are also that people who lost their homes during the bust are entering homeownership again. Prices are also up. A year ago, the average home sale price was $145,000. Now it’s $250,000. Oh, and that development where they sold six homes in a day? The next phase of development goes on sale in May. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    April 09, 2014 —
    Jonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology. In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years. Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    December 04, 2018 —
    Back in February, I discussed a case relating to indemnity and ambiguity. The opinion in that case, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al., allowed a breach of contract and indemnity claim to move forward despite the fact that conflicting term sheets between the plaintiff and defendant could have been read to violate Virginia law by requiring indemnity for English’s own negligence. In other words, the ambiguity worked in English’s favor (though that is not something to count on). The Court did not however address whether there was any negligence on English’s part and if there was, what was the contractual effect. I’ll bet you were wondering what happened later in that case. Well, here’s the answer. In a subsequent opinion, the Court looked at the same ambiguous and conflicting term sheets between and among those defendants that were required to provide quality assurance services for the construction of a bridge in western Virginia. For the full procedural and factual analysis, be sure to read the full memorandum opinion linked above. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    November 18, 2011 —

    On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.

    The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).

    The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

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

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    December 11, 2013 —
    Macomb Township in southeast Michigan has had $122 million in new development in 2013, all of which helped the region reach its highest building levels since 2007. The wider area saw 398 permits issued for single-family homes in the last twelve months, fifty-two more than in the twelve months prior. “The improvement is economically driven,” said Michael Stoskofa, the CEO of the Home Builders Association of Southeast Michigan. As employment improves in the area, “more people are willing and able to purchase a home,” he said. Home inventory in the area is also at a record low. As a result, projects that were put on hold in 2008 are active again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    December 09, 2011 —

    Construction defect claims are now occurrences for insurance purposes in four states, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, and South Carolina, yet there are still frustrations for commercial general liability policyholders. Business Insurance describes court decisions on whether construction defect claims are covered as “incongruous,” and this drives up coverage and litigation costs. Construction firms often find they are defending themselves on two fronts, both the construction defect claim and also whether their insurance covers it.

    Frank Armstrong, the Senior Vice President and National Director of Construction Claims for Willis North America says that the problem starts with the word “occurrence,” as various state courts have different interpretations of the word. “Certain pieces of it don’t fit well, at lest according to some courts in the country, with coverage for construction defect risks.”

    Another insurance executive, Julian Ehlich, the Senior Vice President of Claims for Aon Risk Solutions’ construction services group notes that “jurisdictions differ, so policyholders don’t know what they’re going to get.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    June 11, 2014 —
    You are an engineer or architect. You understand the importance of thorough designs. What about thorough documentation of the daily happenings on the construction project? That is equally important. As regular readers of this blog know, I have often spoken of the importance of proper record keeping on construction projects. In fact, lack of good project records is one of the 7 mistakes in my white paper 7 Critical Mistakes that Engineers & Architects make During Project Negotiation and Execution that Sabotage their Projects & Invite Litigation. Now, a construction management expert, who, like me, sees the ugly when construction projects turn bad, has weighed in with perhaps the authoritative reasoning and rationale (pdf) for good project records. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com