BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts custom homes expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts townhome construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts low-income housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts concrete tilt-up expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts parking structure expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts custom home expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts Subterranean parking expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts institutional building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts multi family housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts casino resort expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts condominiums expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts retail construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts high-rise construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts industrial building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts tract home expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts hospital construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts condominium expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts structural steel construction expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts office building expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts production housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts housing expert witness Cambridge Massachusetts
    Cambridge Massachusetts building envelope expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts civil engineer expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts window expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts construction defect expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts roofing construction expertCambridge Massachusetts delay claim expert witnessCambridge Massachusetts contractor expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Massachusetts Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Expert Witness Engineer 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.


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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cambridge Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Cambridge Massachusetts


    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing

    London Office Builders Aren’t Scared of Brexit Anymore

    TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    Testing Your Nail Knowledge

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims
    Corporate Profile

    CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    December 16, 2019 —
    In Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container. In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    January 06, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the insurer that there was no coverage for a collapse under the policy. S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32569 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). S.O. Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc ("Larios") owned a building in Miami Beach. Sometime between march 4, 2012 and April 10, 2013, Larios discovered that parts of the first three floors of its building had caved in to varying degrees. The primary cause of the collapse was a wooden support beam that had severely rotted. Larios found a broken pipe that was gushing water onto the beam, causing deterioration. Larios was forced to evacuate the building until the damage was repaired. Larios submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great American. The policy required that a collapse an "abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building" to be covered. Before a coverage decision was made, Larios sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Great American's motion and denied Larios' motion. 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

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    January 20, 2020 —
    While Nunn-Agreements[1] may be appealing for both plaintiffs and defendants where an insurer unreasonably fails to defend a lawsuit, a recent opinion from The Honorable Marcia Krieger in the United States District Court of Colorado[2] (“Opinion”) demonstrates the importance of first confirming that there exists a viable insurance claim before proceeding with such a Nunn- Agreement. The facts giving rise to the Opinion were as follows. In March 2015, a Homeowner couple (the “Homeowners”) suffered damages to their home resulting from a brushfire. Fortunately, the Homeowners were insured, they submitted their claim to their homeowners’ insurance carrier which was in effect at the time of the brushfire (the “Insurance Carrier”), and the Insurance Carrier paid the claim. Ostensibly as part of the Homeowners’ remediation efforts to their home they removed a large bush which left a hole in the ground. After paying the claim, in August 2015 the Insurance Carrier cancelled or elected not to renew the Homeowners’ policy. In October 2015, a repairman working on the Home (the “Repairman”) was injured after his ladder fell over allegedly because of the hole in the ground caused by the bush that had been removed. As a result of injuries caused by the fall from the ladder, the Repairman brought suit against the Homeowners. In response to the Repairman’s claim, the Homeowners again tendered to their Insurance Carrier. This time, however, the Insurance Carrier denied coverage on the basis that the Repairman’s injuries occurred after the expiration of the relevant policy. Without insurance coverage, the Homeowner’s entered into a Nunn-Agreement with the Repairman, conceding liability, and assigning any claims they might have had against the Insurance Carrier in lieu of execution of any judgment against the Homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    September 30, 2019 —
    New technologies are redefining how to plan, build and deliver the full spectrum of construction projects. Automation, software and new processes are changing the construction industry in unprecedented ways, and construction management is evolving along with it. Construction companies are adapting—using innovative tools and resources, joined by more aggressive risk management and decision-making methods. All the while, safety remains at the heart of every successful new build. Envisioning the Modern Job Site Productivity has increased by leaps and bounds as processes have gotten faster and cheaper. Twenty years ago, the industry looked completely different— a $500 million project would have taken four years to deliver; today, it can be done in 29 months. These new projects are becoming incredibly complex as new technologies change the size and scope, giving rise to more specialization and fragmentation. Building projects faster with fewer people requires a whole new level of preparation. This is where advanced planning and advanced work packaging can play a big role—by informing exactly how the material is going to arrive, how it will be staged, how it will be fabricated and how the area can be best managed to deliver the work. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Riddle & Brent Burger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Riddle may be contacted at RiddleRN@bv.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at BurgerBB@bv.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    February 18, 2020 —
    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

    Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    October 14, 2019 —
    Congratulations to Randy Maniloff, Counsel in the Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Group, who was named the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® 2020 Insurance Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Philadelphia. Randy was recognized by his peers for his professional abilities in this area. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with extremely high overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location. Randy concentrates his practice in the representation of insurers in coverage disputes over primary and excess obligations under a host of policies, including general liability and various professional liability policies. He has significant experience in coverage matters involving additional insured and contractual indemnity issues. His practice also includes an academic side. He is an adjunct professor of Insurance at Temple University Beasley School of Law and the co-author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage – Key Issues in Every State” (4th edition), a nearly 1,000 page reference book that provides 50-state surveys on 20 critical liability coverage issues. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Randy Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    December 02, 2019 —
    The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? 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

    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    November 12, 2019 —
    In a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019. The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial. Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of