BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts forensic architectCambridge Massachusetts OSHA expert witness constructionCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failureCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts contractor expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural 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


    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    New Report: Civil Engineering Salaries and Job Satisfaction Are Strong and Climbing at a Faster Rate Than Past Reports

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

    Insurer Not Responsible for Insured's Assignment of Policy Benefits

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

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

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Floating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea Levels

    Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    Benford’s Law: A Seldom Used Weapon in Forensic Accounting

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

    Contractor Owed a Defense

    Home Sales Topping $100 Million Smash U.S. Price Records

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

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

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis
    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

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    May 03, 2017 —
    In McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (4/18/2017 – No. G053623), the Fourth Appellate District, in a 2-1 decision, considered two distinct issues: 1. Whether the attorney-client privilege for a confidential e-mail communication between a client and his attorney had been waived by the client’s inadvertent disclosure of the communication to a third party; and 2. Whether the opposing counsel’s failure to respect the claimed privilege as to the inadvertently produced document or to follow the rules for handling such documents set forth in State Compensation Ins. Fund v WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (State Fund) supported the trial court’s disqualification of counsel and his law firm. This case arose from an intra-family dispute over the deceased matriarch’s substantial investment holdings, a related probate matter, and two subsequent legal malpractice actions. The opinion sets forth in great detail the facts surrounding the claimed inadvertent disclosure by the client (i.e., the privilege holder) of the subject attorney-client e-mail communication, its subsequent dissemination to, and use by, the client’s family members, the ultimate receipt and review by an opposing family member’s counsel, the efforts by the client’s counsel to assert the privilege and “claw-back” the document, and in the face of this privilege claim, the opposing counsel’s extensive use of the document during discovery, including depositions, in the legal malpractice actions. The opposing counsel, who had received the subject document from his own client, had independently concluded that the clearly privileged document lost its privileged status, believing that the privilege had been waived either because of disclosure to third parties or that his obligation to return inadvertently disclosed documents only applied to those produced in litigation during discovery. As a result, the opposing counsel refused all demands for the return or destruction of the document and insisted upon continuing to use it. This dispute finally came to a head over two years after the client’s disclosure in the context of the client’s motion for a judicial determination that the document was privileged (which the trial court granted) and then a motion to disqualify the opposing counsel (which the trial court also granted); both decisions were eventually reviewed by the appellate court. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    February 10, 2014 —
    West Deptford, New Jersey township redevelopment counsel Mark Cimino had spent a year arguing that the city should receive a $4 million reduction in construction costs due to “inadequate documentation provided by the bank, as well as receipts showing disbursement had ‘improperly’ been made toward uses other than construction,” according to a December 30th 2013 article in the South Jersey Times. However, a state appellate court upheld the ruling that “the township had no basis” to request the reduction. Now, Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo is “seeking a $10,000 refund on the attorney fees paid” to Cimino, the South Jersey Times reported on February 6th. “This entire matter has been a monumental waste of tax dollars, and I am angry that the entire township committee was misled by Mr. Cimino and induced to believe we had any reasonable chance of recovering loan proceeds from this lawsuit,” DiCarlo stated in a letter to Mayor Raymond Chintall. Not all committee members agree with DiCarlo. Committeeman Sam Cianfarini told South Jersey Times that “he still believed Fulton Bank owed it to West Deptford to answer for any funds put toward anything other than construction.” Cimino declared “that both the lawsuit and appeal were valid,” according to the February 6th article. He “accused DiCarlo of ‘playing politics.’” Read the full story, December 30th Article... Read the full story, February 6th Article... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    National Infrastructure Leaders Visit Dallas' Able Pump Station to Tout Benefits of Water Infrastructure Investment

    September 25, 2023 —
    DALLAS, TX. — An award-winning pump station in south downtown Dallas that protects residents from the Trinity River today was showcased by the national Engineering and Public Works Roadshow as an example of how infrastructure investment can improve the resilience of a community, protect residents, and encourage economic growth. The Able Pump Station in downtown Dallas, Texas won awards from both the American Council of Engineering Companies and the American Society of Civil Engineers since its completion in 2019 and has been credited with providing 100-year flood protection to approximately three square miles of high-profile land that was historically vulnerable to severe flooding events from the Trinity River. The Engineering and Public Works Roadshow is a joint project of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the American Public Works Association (APWA), and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The properties adjacent to the previous Able sump complex had experienced frequent flooding. The sump complex included nine separate and interconnected ponds that store stormwater, as well as two existing pump stations, constructed in the 1930s and 1950s, with a combined capacity of 220,000 gallons per minute. To help prevent the loss of life as a result of flooding, the City of Dallas hired HDR to design the new Able Pump Station, which increases the pumping capacity nearly fourfold, to 875,000 gallons per minute. It also lowers the 100-year flood elevation from 399.0 to a design elevation of 392.5 feet. As the federal government continues to implement this monumental legislation, the second year of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will not be fully realized without an expanded and robust workforce. It is imperative that students nationwide are educated on the rewarding careers of civil engineering and public works so that these professions have the necessary staffing to complete transformative projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

    August 14, 2023 —
    On July 21, 2023, President Biden designated July 23-29, 2023, as “Made in America Week.” This proclamation builds on the Biden Administration’s efforts to bolster domestic manufacturing through evolving policies attached to government funds that require contractors and suppliers to feature varying amounts of U.S.-made content in their products and services. To commemorate this week, here is a refresher on “Made in America” and what it means for government contractors and suppliers. What does “Made in America” mean? Under Executive Order 14005, the Administration defined “Made in America” laws as “all statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders relating to Federal financial assistance awards or Federal procurement, including those that refer to “Buy America” or “Buy American,” that require, or provide a preference for, the purchase or acquisition of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, and manufactured goods offered in the United States.” Generally speaking, “Made in America” or “Buy American” requirements refer to:
    1. The Buy American Act (BAA) of 1933, establishing domestic sourcing preferences for unmanufactured and manufactured articles, materials, and supplies procured by the federal government for public use, including those used on federal construction contracts;
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Barney, Seyfarth and Amy Hoang, Seyfarth Ms. Barney may be contacted at sbarney@seyfarth.com Ms. Hoang may be contacted at ahoang@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

    November 05, 2024 —
    On October 7, 2024, the Hawaii Supreme Court answered the question of whether an “accident” includes an insured’s reckless conduct in emitting harmful greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and whether such emissions are “pollutants” as defined in a general liability policy’s pollution exclusion. In Aloha Petro., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pitt., PA, No., 2024 Haw. LEXIS 179 (Oct. 7, 2024), the Hawaii Supreme Court answered in the affirmative as to both certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, holding that an insured’s reckless conduct can be an “accident” and that GHGs are “pollutants” under the policies’ pollution exclusions. In the underlying case, the County of Honolulu and the County of Maui (the “Counties”) sued Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. (“Aloha”) and several other fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. Namely, the Counties alleged that the fossil fuel industry knew that its products would cause catastrophic climate change, and rather than mitigating their emissions, defendants concealed such knowledge, promoted climate science denial, and increased their production of fossil fuels. Aloha was allegedly on notice that its products caused harmful climate change through its former parent company, Phillips 66, and its current parent company, Sunoco. Given this knowledge, the District Court determined that the Counties allegations constituted reckless conduct by Aloha. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

    October 01, 2024 —
    New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

    April 17, 2019 —
    Duke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    December 04, 2023 —
    White and Williams LLP is proud to be selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®. The firm was recognized in the National Rankings in four practice areas including both Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Insurance Law (Tier 1). In addition, the firm’s office locations in Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, Baltimore, Delaware and New Jersey were recognized for 30 practice areas in the Metropolitan rankings. Achieving a tiered ranking in Best Law Firms signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. The Best Law Firms research methodology includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. The 2024 Best Law Firms rankings can be accessed at www.bestlawfirms.com. 2024 Best Law Firms
      National Tier 1
    • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
    • Insurance Law
      National Tier 3
    • Construction Law
    • Litigation – Construction
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP