BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio construction forensic expert witnessColumbus Ohio eifs expert witnessColumbus Ohio structural concrete expertColumbus Ohio hospital construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio delay claim expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction claims expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expert witness consultant
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Columbus, Ohio

    Ohio Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: According to HB 175, Chptr 1312, for a homebuilder to qualify for right to repair protection, the contractor must notify consumers (in writing) of NOR laws at the time of sale; The law stipulates written notice of defects required itemizing and describing and including documentation prepared by inspector. A contractor has 21 days to respond in writing.


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Columbus Ohio

    Licensing is done at the local level. Licenses required for plumbing, electrical, HVAC, heating, and hydronics trades.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Buckeye Valley Building Industry Association
    Local # 3654
    12 W Main St
    Newark, OH 43055

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Central Ohio
    Local # 3627
    495 Executive Campus Drive
    Westerville, OH 43082

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Miami County
    Local # 3682
    1200 Archer Dr
    Troy, OH 45373

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10

    Ohio Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 3600
    17 S High Street Ste 700
    Columbus, OH 43215

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10

    Union County Chapter
    Local # 3684
    PO Box 525
    Marysville, OH 43040

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10

    Clark County Chapter
    Local # 3673
    PO Box 1047
    Springfield, OH 45501

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10

    Shelby County Builders Association
    Local # 3670
    PO Box 534
    Sidney, OH 45365

    Columbus Ohio Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Columbus Ohio


    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    NY Construction Safety Firm Falsely Certified Workers, Says Manhattan DA

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    The Value of Photographic Evidence in Construction Litigation

    A Landlord’s Guide to the Center for Disease Control’s Eviction Moratorium

    Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix

    Changes to Judicial Selection in Mexico Create a New Case for Contractual ADR Provisions

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    Best Practices in Construction– What are Yours?

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    Failure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's Claim

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases
    Corporate Profile

    COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Columbus, Ohio Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Columbus' 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
    Columbus, Ohio

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    December 11, 2018 —
    Microscopic nanoparticles are part of the mix in nearly 600 construction products. The particles add strength, durability and other desired characteristics. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Big Changes and Trends in the Real Estate Industry

    February 06, 2023 —
    In my practice, I am fortunate enough to attend a real estate conferences on a regular basis. And, without exception, we always get a run down on hot trends/cases from industry leaders. Some issues that are being attacked in hot cases/trends are:
    • Are the typical commission structures – e.g., the typical 5% to 6% divided in half – fair or creating an antitrust issue?
    • Is MLS commission anti-competitive and artificially inflates commission rates?
    • Can a buyer’s agent advertise/represent that it is working for its client for free, as generally happens and has been allowed?
    • What is the impact of agent only showing their clients houses with higher typical commissions, like 6%? And how is this being advertised, pushed for and manipulated contrary to the interests of consumers?
    There are currently some big, national cases that will likely bring about big changes in the entire national real estate community with regard to how real estate brokers’/agents’ commissions are determined, explained and advertised. These cases revolve around antitrust and alleged conspiracy claims – asserting that the use of commissions in today real estate markets are creating an overcharging to consumers and artificially manipulation of the market. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Mihai, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
    Ms. Mihai may be contacted at rmihai@bremerwhyte.com

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    July 16, 2014 —
    On his Best Practices Construction Law blog, Matthew Devries discussed how the “at its sole option…has the right to demand arbitration” can “be a good provision if you are the party who has that option.” For instance, Devries cites the case Archer Western Contractors, LLC v Holder Construction Company, where “the Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a contractor’s motion to compel arbitration with a ‘sole option’ provision.” Devries stated that “it is important to review carefully the disputes clause in your construction contract to fully understand who has the right to demand arbitration and what rules will apply.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    September 17, 2018 —
    I have spoken often about mechanic’s liens and the implications of such liens as they relate to bankruptcy here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Loudoun County, Virginia added another wrinkle to this discussion, that of standing and what happens on conveyance of the property and what interest in the property is required to allow a party to seek removal of the mechanic’s lien. In Leesburg Bldg. P’rs LLC v. Mike Berger Inc. the Loudoun County Circuit Court faced the following scenario. Leesburg Building Partners developed certain condominiums and hired Lansdowne Construction to perform the work as general contractor and paid Landsdowne in full for the work. Lansdowne hired Mike Berger, Inc. (“MBI”) to perform concrete work for the project. Landsdowne didn’t pay MBI approximately $48,000.00 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. MBI, seeking to protect it’s interest in the money it was owed, recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property. Leesburg Building Partners filed an action to declare the lien invalid and have it removed from the property based upon its “payment defense” and the fact that it had paid Landsdowne in full. A relatively simple scenario and one that has been discussed before here at Musings. Not so fast. . . Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    March 27, 2019 —
    A proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska could impact up to 12,000 acres of wetlands as well as local fisheries but would help meet a worldwide demand for copper, according to the draft environmental impact statement on the Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    April 20, 2020 —
    On Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants. The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.” As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    March 12, 2015 —
    In 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015). The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes. A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com