BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts expert witnesses fenestrationCambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts ada design expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building code compliance expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts architectural expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness windowsCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction 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


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

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Consolidated Case With Covered and Uncovered Allegations Triggers Duty to Defend

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    “For What It’s Worth”

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Building Amid the COVID Challenge

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Bizarre Case That Required a 117-Year-Old Expert

    Lewis Brisbois Successfully Concludes Privacy Dispute for Comedian Kathy Griffin Following Calif. Supreme Court Denial of Review

    Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

    Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    State-Fed Fight Heats Up Over Building Private Nuclear Disposal Sites

    Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    New Executive Order: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer
    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. Leveraging 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

    Boston-area Asbestos-Abatement Firms Face Wage and Safety Complaints

    January 26, 2017 —
    Several federal and state complaints against asbestos-abatement and demolition firms operating in Massachusetts have sprouted in the wake of the region’s construction boom. Involving mostly small companies and immigrant workers, the cases allege wage and benefit violations as well as improper exposure to asbestos fibers, which contain cancer-causing carcinogens. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    August 20, 2014 —
    Emergency services in the northern German city of Dusseldorf are preparing to evacuate more than 4,000 people, including residents of a retirement home, as work gets under way to disarm a World War II bomb discovered during construction work yesterday. A further 15,000 people, living within a 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) radius of the site, are being asked to stay indoors and keep away from windows, authorities said in a press release published on its website. The disposal is scheduled for 4 p.m. Roads in the vicinity are expected to remain closed until at least 5 p.m. The 500-kilogram (1,100 pound) U.S. aircraft bomb was unearthed on the site of the former Reitzenstein army barracks, which is being redeveloped as a residential area. It’s the fourth or fifth find since last year in the northeastern district of Moersenbroich, where new apartment buildings and houses are under construction, Tobias Schuelpen, a press spokesman for the local fire service, said by phone. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dorothee Tschampa, Bloomberg
    Ms. Tschampa may be contacted at dtschampa@bloomberg.net

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    March 21, 2011 —

    Assemblyman Ira Hansen and twelve additional members of Nevada’s Assembly are sponsoring Assembly Bill 285. AB 285 Revises provisions governing an award of attorney’s fees in causes of action for constructional defects. Existing law generally provides that a claimant may recover reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the claimant’s damages in a cause of action for constructional defects. (NRS 40.655)

    This bill removes this provision and instead authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party involved in such a cause of action if an independent basis for the award exists pursuant to existing law which authorizes a court to award attorney’s fees in certain circumstances, or Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees by an offeree who rejects an offer and subsequently fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.

    In an AP report published in Business Week it is suggested that the target objective of legislators centers on what it refers to as Nevada’s "Rampant construction defect lawsuits".

    According to Business Week "The suits bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers and have put construction companies out of business. Hansen says fewer construction firms mean higher prices for Nevada consumers."

    Click Here To Read Full Text and Revisions of Assembly Bill 285

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

    How Technology Reduces the Risk of Façade Defects

    March 20, 2023 —
    The shell of the building is an onlooker’s first impression and crafts the architectural aesthetic, but it also plays a crucial role in enabling energy efficiency and protecting against the elements. Because façades are in direct contact with the elements, issues with water intrusion are the most common problem and the costliest to remedy, with anywhere from 30% to 70% of lawsuits related to water intrusion, half of it through the façade. Additionally, improperly installed façades pose significant safety risks because unsecured parts can fall and hit people below. All these factors contribute to the façade being one of the most complex and costly aspects of a building to construct and inspect, making up 205 of the total project cost. Installing these systems correctly the first time is the most effective way to mitigate these threats. Teams should utilize data-informed technology that ensures plan adherence, reducing risk and avoiding errors during installation. The Challenges of Façade Installation Façade installation and subsequent inspection are inherently challenging, particularly for high-rise buildings. When performing post-installation verification manually, inspectors must review every element, joint by joint, window by window, stone by stone and brick by brick, which can take months to complete. Inspections of the entire building system are limited by this process, as inspectors can only access one portion of the building façade at a time and often have to inspect from indoors, on balconies or at the ground level, which doesn’t paint a complete picture. As a result, teams typically only perform spot checks on the façade and are rarely inspected to their fullest. This leaves many installation errors and defects, which serve as ticking bombs for future water intrusion or safety hazards. Reprinted courtesy of Ori Aphek, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    June 29, 2011 —

    The Associated General Contractors of America reported Tuesday, June 28 that construction employment increased in 120 of the 337 metropolitan areas surveyed between May 2010 and May 2011.

    ‘While construction employment has stopped plunging, any sign of a recovery remains spotty at best,” said Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist. ‘The close to even split between areas adding and losing jobs is a reminder that for every market doing well, there is another market that is still hurting.”

    The largest number of jobs created was in the Dallas, Texas region, with 5,600 new jobs, a five percent increase. The northern Massachusetts/southern New Hampshire region near Haverhill saw the greatest percentage increase, although that twenty-two percent increase represents only 800 new jobs. The Chicago, Illiinois area added 4,600 jobs, a four percent increase.

    Other regions were not so lucky. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw a loss of 7,400 jobs, an eight percent loss. Las Vegas also lost 7,400 jobs, which there represented a sixteen percent decline. The New York City area lost 6,700 jobs, a six percent reduction. The Riverside, California area lost 5,300 jobs, a nine percent loss.

    Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer, blamed a combination of regulation and budget squeezes. "Some in Washington never met a regulation they didn’t like and others never found a penny they didn’t want to pinch. Together that makes for a bad way to boost employment and a great way to stifle the private sector and neglect critical economic infrastructure.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied

    September 12, 2022 —
    The insurer's motion to cap a potential business interruption claim after the insured failed to provide documentation was denied. Lake Charles Instruments Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116802 (W.D. La. July 2, 2022). Plaintiff operated a business that was damaged during Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and subsequently by Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. Plaintiff had a commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale that provided business income coverage of up to $500,000. After Hurricane Laura, plaintiff submitted a claim. Plaintiff requested an advance. Scottsdale paid $50,000 on the business interruption (BI) claim while reserving rights to require full compliance with the policy, including submission of appropriate documentation. Scottsdale continued to request documentation, but none was received. Plaintiff also failed to provide documentation for its BI claim after Hurricane Delta. When documentation was finally provided, Scottsdale disputed that the documentation showed a BI claim that exceeded policy limits. Scottsdale determined the BI claim was below the policy limits. 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

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    February 05, 2015 —
    Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of