BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts condominium expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts tract home expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts production housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts custom home expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts Medical building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts office building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts structural engineering expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expertsCambridge Massachusetts building consultant expertCambridge Massachusetts eifs expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts expert witness roofing
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Massachusetts Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness 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.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Builders Association of Central Massachusetts Inc
    Local # 2280
    51 Pullman Street
    Worcester, MA 01606

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Massachusetts Home Builders Association
    Local # 2200
    700 Congress St Suite 200
    Quincy, MA 02169

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Greater Boston
    Local # 2220
    700 Congress St. Suite 202
    Quincy, MA 02169

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North East Builders Assn of MA
    Local # 2255
    170 Main St Suite 205
    Tewksbury, MA 01876

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Western Mass
    Local # 2270
    240 Cadwell Dr
    Springfield, MA 01104

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Bristol-Norfolk Home Builders Association
    Local # 2211
    65 Neponset Ave Ste 3
    Foxboro, MA 02035

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Cape Cod
    Local # 2230
    9 New Venture Dr #7
    South Dennis, MA 02660

    Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Cambridge Massachusetts


    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    April 17, 2019 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    July 01, 2019 —
    The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    June 10, 2019 —
    Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce the Public Law Center (PLC) has named Orange County partner Sean M. Sherlock as the 2019 Volunteers for Justice Attorney of the Year. Sherlock donates his time and knowledge to his community through his pro bono work with PLC. From 2015 to earlier this year he headed a team of attorneys who represented an elderly PLC client in danger of losing her mobile home. The client is the primary caregiver for her disabled grandson who survives solely on a fixed income of disability and Social Security, causing her to fall behind on her space rent for her mobile home. In addition to pro bono work, Sherlock is an avid community volunteer, spending his time supporting organizations that have included Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Orange County Coastkeeper, AYSO and the Boy Scouts of America. “One of the most rewarding aspects of being an attorney is being able to obtain justice for the vulnerable and defenseless in our society who would otherwise be unable to navigate our legal system,” said Sherlock. “My relationship with the PLC has given me many opportunities to do some very gratifying work, and it is a real pleasure working with and learning from the excellent staff attorneys at PLC.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

    Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million. The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. 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

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    March 04, 2019 —
    When American colonists planned downtown Annapolis, Maryland in 1695, they wanted easy access to the sea. Almost 325 years later, the sea is now closer than ever. It’s so close, in fact, that 16 small businesses lost roughly 2 percent of their revenue in 2017. In a first-of-its-kind study, Stanford University and Naval Academy researchers looked at the effect of sea-level rise on a single city-block. Specifically, they examined sunny-day floods—inundation that occurs when infrastructure built for lower waters is no longer sufficient to keep back the highest tides—at a central parking lot at City Dock. As sea levels rise, these “nuisance floods” are becoming more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the U.S. grew from two per year to nearly 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    June 10, 2019 —
    The Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities. The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Mosman may be contacted at smosman@swlaw.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Cellar Advisors, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10655 (E.D. Mo.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered the scope of a waiver of subrogation clause in two wine storage agreements. The court held that the subrogation waivers were limited in scope and, potentially, did not apply to the damages alleged in the pleadings. This case establishes that, in Missouri, waivers of subrogation are narrowly construed and cannot be enforced beyond the scope of the specific context in which they appear. In 2005, Krista and Reid Buerger (the Buergers) contracted Marc Lazar (Lazar) to assist with purchasing, transporting and storing their wine. In 2006, the Buergers entered into a contract with Lazar’s company, Domaine StL, for the storage of their wine in St. Louis. In 2012, the Buergers contracted with Lazar’s other company, Domaine NY, for storage of their wine in New Jersey. The 2006 and 2012 contracts included subrogation waivers. Pursuant to the contracts, Lazar and the Domaine companies (collectively, Defendants) would buy wine for the Buergers by either using the Buergers’ credit card or invoicing them after a purchase. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com