BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting architect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts reconstruction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts structural concrete expertCambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts expert witness concrete failure
    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


    Los Angeles Team Secures Summary Judgment for Hotel Owner & Manager in Tenant’s Lawsuit

    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    Deterioration of Bridge Infrastructure Is Increasing Insurance Needs

    North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Federal District Court Declines Invitation to Set Scope of Appraisal

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

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

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    How Technology Reduces the Risk of Façade Defects

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

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

    Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions
    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

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    March 22, 2018 —

    The Florida District Court reversed erroneous jury instructions that adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine in determining whether the insurer was responsible for the insureds’ collapsed roof. Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 561 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

    The insureds filed a claim for their damaged roof, contending that the damage was caused by a hailstorm. Federal National Insurance Company denied the claim based upon exclusions for “wear and tear, marring, deterioration;” “faulty, inadequate or defective design;” “neglect;” “existing damage;” or “weather conditions.”

    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

    Illinois Supreme Court Rules Labor Costs Not Depreciated to Determine Actual Cash Value

    November 19, 2021 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court determined that a homeowner insurer may not depreciate labor costs in calculating actual cash value (ACV) after a loss under the policy. Sproull v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2021 Ill. LEXIS 619 (Ill. Sept. 23, 2021). Plaintiff was insured under a homeowner's policy that provided replacement cost coverage for structural damage. Under the policy, the insured would initially receive an ACV payment but then could receive replacement cost value (RCV) if repairs or replacement were completed within two years and the insurer was timely notified. The policy did not define "actual cash value." Plaintiff suffered wind damage to his residence and timely submitted a property damage claim to State Farm. The adjuster determined that the building sustained a loss with RCV of $1711.54. In calculating ACV, State Farm began with the RCV and then subtracted plaintiff's $1000 deductible and an additional $394.36, including taxes, for depreciation. Plaintiff thus received an ACV payment of $317.18. Plaintiff claimed that he was underpaid on his ACV claim because State Farm depreciated labor, which is intangible and thus not subject to wear, tear, and obsolescence. Further, labor should not have been depreciated because it was not susceptible to aging or wearing and its value did not diminish over time. 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

    Woman Files Suit for Property Damages

    January 15, 2014 —
    Debra Lovejoy filed suit on December 5th 2013 in Virginias Kanawha Circuit Court claiming that her home sustained damaged after a highway was built near her property, according to The West Virginia Record. The West Virginia Water Company, Carpenter Reclamation Inc., and the West Virginia Department of Transportation-Division of Highways were named in the suit. “Lovejoy claims Carpenter disturbed the contours of the surface, thereby weakening the support for the bank extending along the highway,” reports Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record. Asbury continues: “As a result, the bank has slipped significantly over time, according to the suit.” Lovejoy claims the bank needs to be repaired in order to prevent it from further slips, and is pursuing compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deescalating Hyper Escalation

    July 05, 2023 —
    Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present. Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained. Reprinted courtesy of Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    December 02, 2015 —
    The Second Circuit affirmed the finding of three occurrences in a highway accident after applying the unfortunate event test. Nat'l Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v. Itzkowitz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387 (2nd Cir. Sept. 15, 2015). A dump box attached to a dump truck struck and damaged an overpass. The dump box then separated from the truck and landed in the right lane of the highway. Some thirty seconds to five minutes later, the Itzkowitz vehicle struck the detached dump box. Then, at some point between a few seconds and twenty minutes later, the Hershkowitz (second) vehicle struck the dump box. The insurer for the dump truck owner, National, argued there was one accident, or at most two separate accidents, under the policy. The district court found there were three occurrences and National appealed. 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

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    January 21, 2019 —
    During a storm, a tree landed on a homeowners house causing damage to the home’s foundation. Homeowners filed a claim on their homeowners insurance policy to recover the resulting damages. After homeowners and insurance company could not come to an agreement on value of the loss, homeowners filed a lawsuit. Homeowners presented the testimony of a contractor as an expert witness regarding the damage and the resulting loss of value. Contractor testified that the home value was reduced in half as a direct result of the damage to the home’s foundation. Insurance company sought to exclude the contractor’s testimony, arguing he was not qualified as an expert and did not apply appropriate methodology to reach his opinions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    September 14, 2020 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, we have discussed mechanic’s lien law in Virginia on multiple occasions. We have discussed everything from the very picky nature of the perfection and enforcement of these liens to the changes that the Virginia General Assembly periodically makes to these requirements and how to defend against such liens. While the steps taken and content of a Virginia mechanic’s lien will be strictly construed by the Virginia courts, when perfected properly, a mechanic’s lien can and will put you as a construction company seeking payment in a better position than if no lien were recorded. The direct benefit is that you now hold a lien on the property on which you performed work that takes a priority (read will be paid before) any mortgage or other lien on that structure. In other words, if you, the bank, or the owner seeks to sell the property through foreclosure or otherwise, mechanic’s lien holders generally get paid first. While there are exceptions to be explored with an experienced Virginia construction attorney, this is the general rule and the power of a mechanic’s lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

    The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

    The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

    The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

    The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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