BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts office building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts landscaping construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts condominium expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts custom home expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts production housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts mid-rise construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts tract home expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction project management expert witnessesCambridge Massachusetts testifying construction expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts fenestration expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction expert testimonyCambridge Massachusetts soil failure expert witness
    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


    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    Orchestrating Bias: Arbitrator’s Undisclosed Membership in Philharmonic Group with Pauly Shore’s Attorney Not Grounds to Reverse Award in Real Estate Dispute

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

    The Great Skyscraper Comeback Skips North America

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    August 03, 2020 —
    There is just over one week left to apply for the extended period of the Paycheck Protection Program, which will accept new applications through Aug. 8. Congress extended the legislation by unanimous consent on June 30 and President Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, 2020, allowing approximately $131.9 billion in funding to remain accessible to small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Associated Builders and Contractors has expressed support for several changes to the PPP, but submitted comments on July 27, 2020, to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. Small Business Administration regarding changes to an interim final rule altering loan forgiveness and loan review procedures. ABC urges the government agencies to:
    • Provide further guidance on when businesses should apply for loan forgiveness and when they are notified of their forgiveness status.
    • Issue further guidance on the PPP audit process.
    • Increase flexibility for employee retention requirements and loan forgiveness.
    • Provide further clarification of non-payroll costs.
    • Refocus efforts to deliver PPP funds to underserved communities and minority businesses.
    Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    June 29, 2020 —
    Common law indemnity is not an easy claim to prove as the one seeking common law indemnity MUST be without fault: Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other and is allowable only where the whole fault is in the one against whom indemnity is sought. It shifts the entire loss from one who, although without active negligence or fault, has been obligated to pay, because of some vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical liability, to another who should bear the costs because it was the latter’s wrongdoing for which the former is held liable. Brother’s Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp. v. Curry-Dixon Construction, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D259b (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) quoting Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490, 492-93 (Fla. 1979). Not only must the one seeking common law indemnity be without fault, but there also needs to be a special relationship between the parties (indemnitee and common law indemnitor) for common law indemnification to exist. Brother’s Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp., supra (citation omitted). A special relationship has been found to exist between a general contractor and its subcontractors. Id. at n.2. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release

    June 01, 2020 —
    While the federal government and states (including California) are working on establishing standards and how to manage the toxic chemicals known as PFAS (as defined below), certain states and banks are requiring testing for PFAS to approve no-further-action (NFA) determinations or to underwrite loans. PFAS do not easily fit within standard definitions of hazardous substances used in today’s agreements. Thus, if you want to ensure you and your successors are released for PFAS which later environmental testing may reveal, ensure such is specifically listed in your releases. What Are PFAS As depicted in the recent major-release movie Dark Waters, PFAS are a group of very stable man-made chemicals that are both toxic and ubiquitous. They are long-chain chemicals which means they do not naturally degrade easily. Reprinted courtesy of John Van Vlear, Newmeyer Dillion and Gregory Tross, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    May 18, 2020 —
    It is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:
    If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.
    A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Ms. Millerick may be contacted at mrmillerick@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    June 15, 2020 —
    Those of you in the construction industry know that the two primary statutes of limitation are the 4-year year statute of limitations for patent defects and 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects. Both statutes begin to run on “substantial completion.” In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. D076264 (January 22, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether the term “substantial completion,” as used in Civil Code section 941, which applies to residential construction, can be defined by the parties’ contract and applied to third-parties. The Hensel Phelps Case Hensel Phelps Construction Co. entered into a prime construction contract with the owner and developer of a mixed-use project in San Diego. Hensel Phelps was the general contractor on the project. The project included a residential condominium tower which would eventually be managed and maintained by Smart Corner Owners Association. Smart Corners was not a party to the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    June 29, 2020 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked the #5 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2020 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms. Gordon & Rees is the only California-based law firm to rank in the Top 25. The firm was ranked in the Top 10 in more specific areas as well.
    • #1 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Most Locations
    • #2 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of Construction Attorneys
    • #6 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of States Admitted to Practice
    “With offices throughout the nation and outstanding construction attorneys in many of those offices, we are able to offer our construction clients a diverse range of legal services wherever they do business,” said Ernie Isola partner and co-chair of the firm’s construction practice group. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    October 05, 2020 —
    Risk transfer in the construction industry depends heavily on industry-standard insurance language. Insurance provisions in subcontracts typically reference ISO standard insurance terminology or endorsements in order to guarantee (or, at least, attempt to secure) coverage for upstream parties. The contract may require, for example, that a subcontractor maintains general liability insurance on a “current ISO occurrence form,” and name upstream parties as additional insureds, and both parties will have a general understanding of what that entails for purposes of risk transfer. Problems arise, however, when insurance companies stray from standard language, especially on issues that go to the heart of construction risk transfer. In some instances, provisions that track ISO language may contain subtle changes that seem to meet the contractual insurance requirements. Upon closer scrutiny, it could significantly change how a policy will respond to a given claim. Given the extent of potential liability arising from construction projects, if the insurance programs intended to back up risk transfer and indemnity agreements do not respond as expected, all the potentially liable parties may be left in the lurch. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at emc@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of