BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts structural concrete expertCambridge Massachusetts expert witness structural engineerCambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building envelope expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing and waterproofing 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


    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2020

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Defining Construction Defects

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Predicting the Future of Texas’s Grid Is a Texas-Sized Challenge

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Infrastructure Money Comes With Labor Law Strings Attached

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Revised Cause Identified for London's Wobbling Millennium Bridge After Two Decades

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/2/24) – Increase in Commercial Property Vacancy Rates, Trouble for the Real Estate Market and Real Estate as a Long-Term Investment

    Claims Litigated Under Government Claims Act Must “Fairly Reflect” Factual Claims Made in Underlying Government Claim
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    July 09, 2014 —
    On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the First District Court of Appeal in the case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (Case No. S208173). The issue in the Beacon case is whether the architects of a residential project owe a duty to future third party homeowners under SB800 and common law. In 2011, Judge Richard Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court sustained demurrers of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and HKS Architects to the homeowners association complaint without leave to amend. The homeowners association appealed and the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer, ruling that the homeowners could assert SB800 and common law claims against the architects of the project even in the absence of privity of contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    April 27, 2011 —

    In Markel American Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), insured homebuilder Lennar filed suit against its insurer Markel seeking recovery of costs incurred by Lennar to repair water damage to homes resulting from defective EIFS siding. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Lennar and against Markel. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed. Applying Texas law, the court first held that Lennar failed to satisfy its burden of allocating damages between covered and uncovered. In a prior decision, the court had held that, while the costs incurred by Lennar for the repair of the resulting water damage

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    July 28, 2016 —
    When you file a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit, you must also record a lis pendens in the official (public) records against the property. This lis pendens serves as written notice that there is a lawsuit concerning the real property, and more specifically, title relating to that real property. If the property is then sold or rented, the buyer or tenant will ultimately be bound by a final determination relating to the lawsuit concerning title to the property. This is the value in recording a lis pendens and why it is a MUST in any foreclosure lawsuit. (This is the same value in any mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and why lis pendens are recorded in these lawsuits too.) A lis pendens will show up in a title report. In most instances, title companies will not issue a title policy if there is a lis pendens or may require a certain amount of money escrowed as a result of the lis pendens and pending action in order to issue a title policy. Also, a buyer, in particular, and a tenant are not going to want to invest in property where the title to that property is at-issue in a lawsuit. Hence, the lis pendens impacts the sale and potential re-financing of the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    March 18, 2019 —
    In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    April 05, 2017 —
    In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    June 30, 2016 —
    On July 20, 2015, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. Since that date, a number of significant political events have taken place. First, the U.S. reopened its embassy in Cuba on August 14, 2015. Next, on January 26, 2016, offices of the U.S. Departments of the Treasury and Commerce announced new amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. These amendments removed “existing restrictions on payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities,” and established “a case-by-case licensing policy for exports and reexports of items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including those made to Cuban state-owned enterprises.”[1] Additionally, these amendments “further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines, authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels, and authorizing additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artist productions in Cuba.”[2] Finally, on March 21, 2016, President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since the 1959 revolution, in which Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista. This revolution ultimately led to the U.S. severing diplomatic relations in 1961 and President John F. Kennedy imposing a trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba, which remains in effect today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo Shatley, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    October 01, 2014 —
    Metrostudy surveyed the Chicago, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis/St. Paul markets and found an increase in subdivisions—“[n]ot a re-hashing of existing communities or a re-configuring of existing developments, but new land, being newly developed,” according to Builder magazine. Builder reported that in 2010 only 383 new lots were delivered to the Chicago market, but in just the first six months of 2014, 1,500 new lots have been delivered. Furthermore, the Twin Cities had a total of 964 lots delivered in 2010. “In 2013, there were 3,683 new lot deliveries. Indianapolis has seen a total of 1,400 new lots delivered in the first six months of 2014, compared to just 650 through the first half of 2010.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    October 28, 2011 —

    The city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”

    Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.

    Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.

    Read the full story...

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