BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts forensic architectCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts expert witness commercial buildings
    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


    Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

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

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2021 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

    Construction Manager Has Defense As Additional Insured

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    Seabold Construction Ties Demise to Dispute with Real Estate Developer

    The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    Coverage for Named Windstorm Removed by Insured, Terminating Such Coverage

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

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation
    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

    Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

    August 03, 2022 —
    Takeaways
    • The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
    • The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
    • The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
    Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    July 01, 2014 —
    The Ninth Circuit held that a claim for advertising injury was properly denied under the prior publication exclusion. Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10737 (9th Cir. June 10, 2014). Street Surfing began selling a two-wheeled, inline skateboard called the "Wave" in December 2004. By 2007, Street Surfing also sold and advertised accessories for the Wave, such as "Lime Green Street Surfing Wheels for The Wave," and the "New Ultimate Street Surfer Wheel Set." Rhyn Noll, who owned the registered trademark "Streetsurfer," sued Street Surfing in June 2008, claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and unfair trade practices. Street Surfing had known that Noll owned the "Streetsurfer" trademark since early 2005. In September 2008, Street Surfing submitted a claim for coverage to Great American and tendered Noll's complaint. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

    May 07, 2015 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often discussed mediation as a good alternative to the expense and headaches of litigation. What I have discussed less often are the circumstances in which it is most appropriate to consider or even push for mediation. The obvious and clearest time that mediation must be used is where the contract requires it. Many construction contracts, including those from the AIA (when the parties check the appropriate box) require mediation as a prerequisite to arbitration or litigation. As is almost always the case in Virginia, this clause will be enforced. In short, if your construction contract has such a clause, and despite my reservations about “mandatory mediation,” you need to at least go through the process before moving forward with your construction claim. The more interesting case is where no such clause exists and the parties reach an impasse, sometimes prior to litigation and often after the filing of a construction complaint or demand for arbitration. What questions should you as a construction attorney be asking both to and about your construction clients before attempting mediation? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    August 07, 2022 —
    Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that firm Chair Emeritus Richard Traub has been awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP). The IACP provides a forum for senior Claim leaders from across the globe to build relationships with their peers, enhance their knowledge of strategic claim issues and trends, freely exchange views and ideas in order to improve the development, leadership and professionalism of its members and foster goodwill and better business among insurance organizations worldwide. Attorneys at Traub Lieberman have been longstanding members and Diamond Sponsors of the IACP. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard K. Traub, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Traub may be contacted at rtraub@tlsslaw.com

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    August 19, 2015 —
    Several months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.
    “The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”
    Construction Difficulties The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

    April 25, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle obtained summary judgment on behalf of a contract utility company (“Utility Company”) in a matter brought before the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of a trip and fall accident where the Plaintiff’s foot allegedly went into a hole in the grass strip abutting the sidewalk adjacent to a premises located in Queens, NY. The Plaintiff claimed that the defect in the sidewalk was caused by the removal of a utility pole at the curb strip that was not correctly backfilled. The Defendant Utility Company is in the business of inspecting, treating, and repairing utility and telecommunication structures, including wooden utility poles. TLSS was successfully able to establish that, three years prior to the accident, the Utility Company was retained to conduct a visual inspection of the subject pole. However, the Utility Company does not and has not owned, installed, removed or replaced in-service utility poles in New York or at the location of the alleged accident. Further, TLSS established that the Utility Company did not service or remove the subject pole at the accident site or backfill the curb strip. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
    Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    February 23, 2016 —
    The California Supreme Court has shifted gears on so-called “reverse CEQA” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated decision, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless: 1. The proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or 2. A reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects. 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

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    March 12, 2015 —
    Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of