BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts building code expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witness consultantCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts stucco 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


    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Jury Trials: A COVID Update

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    “Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man

    Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide
    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

    Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

    September 13, 2021 —
    September 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined. The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Roth, SFAA
    Mr. Roth may be contacted at proth@surety.org

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    April 02, 2024 —
    Britain’s top antitrust enforcer has opened an investigation into eight housebuilders to probe potential information sharing, sharpening scrutiny of a sector that’s failing to deliver enough affordable housing to meet demand. The Competition and Markets Authority has opened a cartel investigation into eight developers including Barratt Developments Plc, the Berkeley Group, Persimmon Plc and Vistry Group Plc. The investigation centers on concerns the companies may have exchanged competitively sensitive information, which could be influencing the build-out of sites and the prices of new homes. An initial review will take place until December. CMA Chief Executive Officer Sarah Cardell told Bloomberg Television the watchdog had seen potential evidence of companies exchanging information relating to pricing, sales rates, and incentives offered to new homebuyers. The watchdog has the power to fine firms a maximum penalty of as much as 10% of annual revenue and disqualify directors following cartel investigations. Reprinted courtesy of Damian Shepherd, Bloomberg and Katharine Gemmell, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

    June 07, 2021 —
    Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    November 10, 2016 —
    For a number of years we have been honored to be asked by California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (“CEB”) to serve as update authors for several of their well-regarded construction and real estate practice books. Updates to two of those books were published in October and November:
    • The 2016 Update to the CEB’s California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies was published in October. Covering both private and public works, the practice guide details the statutory payment remedies for unpaid work, including, mechanics liens, stop payment notices and construction bonds. Wendel Rosen served as update author for Chapters 2 and 3 which covers private works 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

      Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

      September 20, 2021 —
      Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

      December 23, 2024 —
      In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. This case involved a water loss to the Pennsylvania residence of Mikyung Kim and her husband Adrian Kim (collectively, the Kims) that was discovered in April 2021. An investigation revealed that the water loss originated from the failure of a bidet for a toilet in the second-floor bathroom. The Kims alleged that defendant, Coway USA, Inc. (Coway), sold the bidet and installed it around 2010. An employee of the plaintiff’s liability expert, a materials engineer, opined that a T-connector—a plastic valve that regulates the flow of water to and through the bidet—failed due to overtightening of the connector during the manufacturing process. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
      Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

      'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

      April 29, 2024 —

      On March 27, Construction Executive presented its "2024 Q1 Economic Update and Forecast," hosted by ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. If you've attended previous versions of this webinar, you're familiar with Basu’s pragmatic approach to the economics of the construction industry and his penchant for predicting recession. But this quarter, he opted for an almost-optimistic approach and hinted at walking back his thoughts on recession. Read the most quotable moments, new poll results and top takeaways from the presentation below.

      POLL RESULTS: Q1 2024 vs. Q4 2023 Poll 1: Which of these is the leading challenge for your company today?

      Supply chain and/or materials issues

      Skills/worker shortage

      Insufficient demand for construction services

      Availability of financing for projects/project work

      None of the above

      December 2023March 2024
      10% 7%
      57% 60%
      11% 11%
      19% 17%
      3% 6%

      Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

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

      Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

      September 24, 2014 —
      The Manhattan Supreme Court “denied a last-ditch effort by Jeshayahu Boymelgreen to avoid handing over financial records as part of a state investigation into the development of 15 Broad Street in the Financial District,” according to The Real Deal. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had ordered Boymelgreen to turn over the records. Futhermore, according to court records (as reported in The Real Deal), “the developer was also seeking to reduce the amount of money required to fund a $470,000 escrow account to make repairs at the condo — known as Downtown by Starck — which Boymelgreen jointly developed with Africa Israel.” “We’re glad to see that the courts are rejecting Boymelgreen’s arguments why he shouldn’t be required to maintain an escrow account as security for the sponsor to obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy for 15 Broad, as was set forth in the very offering he participated in with Africa Israel,” Steven Sladkus, attorney for unit owners at the condo, stated. “Accountability is one step closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.” Brian Itzkowitz, an attorney representing Boymelgreen, did not return The Real Deal’s calls or emails. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of