BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting general contractorCambridge Massachusetts roofing construction expertCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction claims 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


    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

    Construction Insurance Rates Up in the United States

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

    The ABCs of PFAS: What You Need to Know About Liabilities for the “Forever Chemical”

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Annual Forum Meeting in New Orleans

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

    SCOTUS, Having Received Views of Solicitor General, Will Decide Whether CWA Regulates Indirect Discharge of Pollutants Into Navigable Water Via Groundwater

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

    Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE

    San Francisco OKs Revamped Settling Millennium Tower Fix

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

    Angels Among Us

    White and Williams Recognizes Women’s History Month: Remembering Virginia Barton Wallace

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    ASCE Statement on House Passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

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

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Construction News Roundup

    NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates
    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

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    February 04, 2014 —
    Jeff German of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Justice Department attorneys filed papers January 28th demanding the trial involving 11 defendants charged in a scheme to take over the Las Vegas Valley homeowners associations to be held no later than September 2nd. The prosecutors claimed “they have gone out of their way to ease the burden on the defense as they have turned over mountains of evidence in the past year.” However, the defense attorneys allege that they need “at least a year and likely more time” to go through the “more than 3 million pages of documents” and to create a trial strategy, according to German. The defense “asked for an initial late January 2015 trial date.” The case involves charges against “lawyers, former police officers and corrupt board members” for “packing HOA boards to gain legal and construction defect contracts for themselves.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    March 20, 2011 —

    In light of the decision in Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals in Group Builders, Inc.,v. Admiral Insurance Company, 231 P.3d 67(2010), Hawaii’s state senate is requesting that "every domestic and foreign insurance company that has ever issued commercial general liability policies in the State is requested to submit information to the Legislature on the total premiums received for their commercial general liability policies during the past ten years"

    Read Full Text of Hawaii State Senate Resolution

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

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    November 20, 2013 —
    According to the analytics and advisory firm PPR, the Boston-area market is “ungodly tight.” So even with all the building planned for the area, it’s likely to make the market normal and not lead to a glut. PPR predicts that the building boom may cool off in 2016, with the next mayoral administration. Some of the condo real estate has been fetching multi-million prices. Sue Hawkes, president and CEO of The Collaborative Cos. Points out that there are about 1,500 units in Boston priced in excess of $2 million. She wonders about future buyers in the luxury market. “Where are all these people going to come from?” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    August 30, 2021 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    February 06, 2019 —
    In newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019). In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:
    “Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    February 12, 2024 —
    In Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. a/s/o Michael Sacks v. Koser, No. 1340 MDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574, 2023 PA Super 252 (Mutual Benefit), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed whether a landlord’s property insurer could file a subrogation action against tenants that had negligently damaged the landlord’s property. Despite there being more than one clause in the lease holding the tenants liable for the damages, the court held that because there was a provision requiring the landlord, not the tenants, to insure the leased building, the insurer could not subrogate against the tenants. In Pennsylvania, a tenant’s liability for damage to a leased premises in a subrogation action brought by a landlord’s insurer is determined by the reasonable expectation of the parties to the lease agreement. Under this approach, to determine if subrogation is permitted, the court considers the circumstances of the case and examines the terms of the lease agreement. In Mutual Benefit, the tenants leased and resided in a residential home pursuant to a lease agreement. The lease specifically addressed insurance, stating that landlord was responsible for obtaining insurance on the dwelling and the landlord’s personal property, and tenants were encouraged to procure separate insurance for their personal property. The lease also addressed liability for damage to the leased property, stating generally that the tenants were responsible for damage caused by the tenants’ negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019). Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended. 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

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    February 14, 2013 —
    The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of