BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction expertsCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts consulting general contractorCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts multi family design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer 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


    To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    Following My Own Advice

    Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    Labor Shortages In Construction

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in EEOC Subpoena Case

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision
    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

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    October 21, 2015 —
    In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    June 03, 2019 —
    After much study, EPA has decided against changing its current RCRA Subtitle D rules affecting the state regulation of oil and gas exploration & production waste. Since 1988, EPA has determined that most such wastes should be regulated as only non-hazardous wastes subject to RCRA Subtitle D, and not the more onerous hazardous waste provisions of RCRA Subtitle C. (See the Regulatory Determination of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes, 53 FR 25,446 (July 6,1988).) As a result, under the Subtitle D rules, the primary regulators of such waste are state regulatory agencies, which follow the state plan non-hazardous waste guidelines developed by EPA. This regulatory disposition has proven to be fairly controversial, and it was recently challenged in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy. To settle this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree by which EPA was to make certain determinations about the future of the program after conducting an appropriate study. That study, Management of Exploration, Development and Production Wastes: Factors Informing a Decision on the Need for Regulatory Action, has been completed, and it concludes, after a fairly comprehensive review of these state regulatory programs, that “revisions to the federal regulations for the management of E&P wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA (40 CFR Part 257) are not necessary at this time.” In a statement released on April 23, 2019, EPA accepted these findings and promised that it would continue to work with states and other stakeholders to identify areas for improvement and to address emerging issues to ensure that exploration, development and production wastes “continue to be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    June 26, 2014 —
    No state is needier than West Virginia when it comes to fixing crumbling highways, airports and water works, with annual repair needs of $1,035 per resident that’s three times the national average. Yet even with borrowing costs hovering close to four-decade lows, lawmakers rejected a January proposal to sell $1 billion of bonds to repair roads that run through the Appalachian Mountains. Budget cuts were a more immediate concern, they said. Across the U.S., localities are refraining from raising new funds in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression left them with unprecedented deficits. Rather than take advantage of Federal Reserve (FDTR) policy that’s held benchmark interest rates at historic lows since December 2008, they’re repaying obligations by the most on record. Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Mr. Chappatta may be contacted at bchappatta1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Selway and Brian Chappatta, Bloomberg

    Despite Construction Gains, Cement Maker Sees Loss

    May 10, 2013 —
    Vulcan Materials, the Birmingham, Alabama-based business that describes itself as the nation’s largest producer of construction aggregates and aggregate-based construction materials, has reported that its losses have increased to $54.8 million in the first quarter of 2013. This was on revenues of $538 million, an increase from the past. The first quarter also saw the company shipping 248,000 tons of material, an increase of fourteen percent over the first quarter of 2012. Losses were attributed to bad weather, lower production volumes, and an increase in costs. Global Cement quotes Don James, the chairman and CEO of Vulcan, “growth in residential construction activity and its traditional follow-on impact to private non-residential construction underpins our expectations for volume and earnings improvement in 2013.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    February 05, 2015 —
    In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, Filed 1/27/2015) (“Greenwell”), the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held a California resident could not establish specific personal jurisdiction over an insurance company, located in Michigan, which issued a policy of insurance to the California resident where the claimed loss occurred in Arkansas. Plaintiff purchased a policy of insurance from defendant, Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (“Auto”), a Michigan corporation. The policy provided commercial property coverage for an apartment building owned by Plaintiff, located in Arkansas. The policy also provided commercial general liability coverage for plaintiff’s property ownership business, which plaintiff operated from California. Both coverage provisions insured certain risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California. The dispute which arose between Plaintiff and Defendant, however, involved two fires that damaged the apartment building in Arkansas. As a result of coverage decisions that Auto made in the handling of the claim, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    March 01, 2017 —
    As a part of our 80 acts of Kindness commitment, Haight has registered a team to walk/run in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Event taking place Saturday, March 11, 2017 at Dodger Stadium from 7:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. We have a great group of partners, associates, and staff joining the Haight team to walk or run in support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. For over 30 years, the Foundation’s efforts have funded life-saving breast cancer research and provided support to the thousands of women and men battling the disease. For 80 years, Haight Brown & Bonesteel has been one of California’s leading full service law firms. To commemorate our 80 years in business, we are giving back to the community. Throughout 2017, we will demonstrate our commitment to those in need through 80 different acts of kindness. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    February 22, 2018 —
    I met Jarmo, the Technology Manager at Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, at the leading event for housing markets in Helsinki (Asuntomarkkinat). He and his team had set up an impressive display of devices and structures in the KIRA-digi showroom. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, aec business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    January 06, 2016 —
    Ouch. That’s what a court called a contract to remediate petroleum contamination at a number of gas stations in New York. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe the contracts that get signed. Environmental Risk hired Science Applications to remediate petroleum contamination at 47 gas stations. Environmental Risk had previously entered into a Professional Services Master Agreement with Science Applications, but also required Science Applications to sign three separate, but basically identical, subcontracts called the Project Specific Scopes of Work. So, right from the start, there were four contracts that could apply to Science Applications’ work. 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