BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts tract home building expert Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort building expert Cambridge Massachusetts production housing building expert Cambridge Massachusetts office building building expert Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up building expert Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure building expert Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes building expert Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking building expert Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums building expert Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction building expert Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts concrete expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts roofing construction expertCambridge Massachusetts construction expertsCambridge Massachusetts engineering consultant
    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


    Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

    Be Mindful Accepting Payment When Amounts Owed Are In Dispute

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Brazil's Success at Hosting World Cup Bodes Well for Olympics

    Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Repairs to Water Infrastructure Underway After Hurricane Helene

    Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    New York Establishes a Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors

    Forget the Apple Watch. Apple’s Next Biggest Thing Isn’t for Sale

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

    BWB&O Partners are Recognized as 2022 AV Preeminent Attorneys by Martindale-Hubbell!

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

    A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Want to Build Affordable Housing in the Heart of Paris? Make It Chic.
    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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    May 29, 2023 —
    “I never had a chance.” Such was the plea of a general contractor to a Maryland federal court after having been terminated for failure to perform. “The Agreement provides no express right to cure,” found the court, weighing in on the contractor’s wrongful termination claim. Indeed, the contract was also very clear on termination, allowing for termination for cause on numerous bases, including a common catchall: if the contractor “persistently fails to perform the provisions of this Agreement.” In advance of the actual date of termination, the owner wrote to the contractor, in accordance with the contract: “Notice is also given that seven days from the date of this correspondence, [owner] will exercise its [termination] rights under Section 13.2.2.2 of the Contract." The communication from the owner contained no discussion of allowing the contractor an opportunity to cure its alleged default. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    June 15, 2011 —

    On June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.

    Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.

    A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.

    The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    October 10, 2013 —
    The South Carolina Supreme Court held that continuing damage that was part of a continuum of property damage constituted an "occurrence." Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 248 (Sept. 25, 2013). Rhodes hired Eadon to design, fabricate, and erect three outdoor advertising signs on Rhodes' property bordering an interstate highway. After the signs were erected, one fell across the highway, blocking both lanes of southbound traffic. The state Department of Transportation ordered Rhodes to remove the remaining two signs and revoked Rhodes' permit to maintain signs on the property. Rhodes sued Eaton. Eaton's insurer, Auto-Owners, filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether there was coverage under the CGL policy. The trial court found the sign falling on the interstate constituted an "occurrence" that resulted in damages beyond the defective work to property other than the defective work itself. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    July 08, 2019 —
    The immediate applications and benefits of Industrial Internet of Things technologies are obvious in industries like manufacturing and computing, but these digital transformation technologies may not be top of mind for construction managers. It’s time for that mindset to change. Worldwide spending on IIoT is expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2022, proving that these technologies hold a significant amount of value to the industries using them. That rings especially true in construction, where IIoT stands to bolster an already significant commitment to safety and communication. Construction managers should keep these technologies firmly on the radar when making investments in 2019. Smart equipment With sensors and radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, even legacy construction equipment can become part of a construction company’s IIoT fleet. The data collected from these machines provides construction managers with a wealth of knowledge around downtime, safety, labor, efficiency and more. Additionally, the next era of smart construction equipment will feature more autonomous vehicles and automatic equipment shutdown, both of which promote worker safety. Autonomous vehicles, which self-correct based on feedback and environmental factors, also free up human engineers to move from maintenance tasks into more complex roles that leverage the feedback data reported by IIoT machinery. Reprinted courtesy of Ginger Butz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Butz may be contacted at info@moreycorp.com

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    February 14, 2022 —
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    May 04, 2020 —
    On March 2, 2020, by a unanimous vote, the House passed HB 968. This Bill seeks to clarify which civil actions are subject to Code Section 9-3-51, which is the eight-year statute of repose for deficiencies in connection with improvements to realty. If passed by the General Assembly, it would explicitly state that the statute of repose will not apply to breach of express warranties. If the Bill is passed, O.C.G.A § 9-3-51 would include a subsection that provides: “This Code section shall not apply to actions for breach of contract, including, but not limited to actions for breach of express contractual warranties.” Jason Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    June 14, 2021 —
    This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC, et al. v Mayor and City of Baltimore The issue the court confronted was a procedural matter: Can the defendant energy companies use the federal removal statutes (see 28 USC Section 1442) to remove a state law climate change lawsuit to federal court? Here, a group of energy companies were sued by the mayor and city council of Baltimore in state court, where they alleged that the defendants had concealed the adverse environmental effects of the fossil fuel products they promoted and sold in Baltimore City. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in many state courts, where typically it is alleged that the defendants can be sued on various common law theories. Rather than defend these cases in state court, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court because climate change liability appears to be an issue that should be settled at the federal level. These efforts have been unsuccessful, with most federal trial and appellate courts holding that the reasons cited for removal (oftentimes the federal officer removal statute) have not been persuasive. In this case, both the Maryland federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals held they had no jurisdiction to authorize removal, and thus returned the case to the state court. Noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a removal action could be countenanced under Section 1442, thus creating a circuit split, the Supreme Court held that a straightforward reading of the removal statute empowers the reviewing court to examine all theories for removal that a district court has rejected. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit where it can decide, “in the first instance,” whether there actually exist grounds to remove this case to federal court. 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

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    February 12, 2013 —
    A West Virginia school board has filed a lawsuit against four companies over the construction of the Lewisburg Elementary School. The main allegation is that Carpenter Reclamation Inc. excavated the site deeper than was called for, which then incurred greater expenses for the subsequent contractors, and further that the liner installed by Carpenter Reclamation was defective. The suit also names Western Surety, which issued a performance bond for Carpenter Reclamation. The school board claims that Carpenter’s failure to fix the problem, required $5,800 in evaluation, review, and testing. Further, the plumbing and lead contractors had additional expenses of $10,587 and $212,645 because of the deeper foundation. The school board has also named these firms, Dougherty Company, Inc. and Swope Construction, in the lawsuit. Ron Mallory, the president of Swope Construction said that the school board’s dispute was “with the site contractor, not with us,” noting that they did corrective work under a change order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of