BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio OSHA expert witness constructionColumbus Ohio expert witness structural engineerColumbus Ohio construction expert testimonyColumbus Ohio building consultant expertColumbus Ohio window expert witnessColumbus Ohio building code compliance expert witnessColumbus Ohio consulting general contractor
    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


    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Effective July 1, 2022, Contractors Will be Liable for their Subcontractor’s Failure to Pay its Employees’ Wages and Benefits

    Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

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

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 7: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim

    Traub Lieberman Recognized in 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”

    A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

    New Mexico Architect Is Tuned Into His State

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

    Carbon Sequestration Can Combat Global Warming, Sometimes in Unexpected Ways

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Honors Four Partners as ‘Lawyers of the Year’

    Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens

    Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

    Los Angeles Wildfires Rage on, Destroying Structures and Displacing Residents
    Corporate Profile

    COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Columbus, Ohio Building Expert 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Columbus' most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Columbus, Ohio

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    November 08, 2017 —
    Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long wants to revamp the way federal disaster funds are distributed, putting a greater emphasis on building more-resilient structures and communities before disasters strike, Long told a House panel reviewing federal response to the recent slate of disasters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    April 20, 2020 —
    Unemployment claims hit a historic high this past week as 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits. To give you some context, this is not only the highest number of unemployment claims ever filed, it is five times higher than the previous record of 695,000 unemployment claims in 1982. Restaurants, hotels, airlines and other businesses have begun to layoff or furlough workers. According to a survey conducted by the Associated General Contractors of America this past week, 39% of respondents reported that project owners have halted or cancelled construction projects due to deteriorating economic conditions, 45% reported project delays or disruptions, and 23% reported supply chain disruptions. While the construction industry likely won’t be impacted nearly to the same degree as the retail sector has, some involved in the construction industry may nevertheless be faced with the prospect of having to lay off or furlough workers as “shelter in place” orders are extended. If you’re faced with that situation here are a few things to remember: Paid Sick Leave Under California law, nearly all employers are required to provide paid sick leave to employees who work for 30 or more days in a given year. Paid sick leave can be used by an employee for illnesses, including COVID-19, the diagnosis, care, or treatment of existing health conditions, and preventative care for the employee or employee’s family member. The important thing to remember here is that use of paid sick leave is an employee’s choice. While an employer, concerned that an employee may have contracted COVID-19, may require that an employee not come to the office, the employer cannot force such an employee to use his or her paid sick leave. For more information, the California Labor Commissioner has created a webpage specific to COVID 19. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    September 07, 2017 —
    While Hurricane Irma boils in the Atlantic and seems to be aiming towards Florida, storm preparations are well underway. As contractors are busy organizing efforts to secure their job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful when the dust finally settles:
    • Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements.
    • Even if not expressly required at this point in time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that productivity and the progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
    • Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen H. Reisman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com

    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

    September 25, 2018 —
    A continuing construction worker strike in Seattle and Western Washington state headed into Labor Day weekend after a number of contractors signed individual agreements to return to work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christine Kilpatrick, ENR
    Ms. Kilpatrick may be contacted at kilpatrickc@enr.com

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    August 17, 2011 —

    The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.

    According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.

    Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

    Read the full story…

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

    Texas Plans a Texas-Sized Response to Rising Seas

    June 27, 2022 —
    In coastal Texas and many other places, walled cities are making a comeback. It’s quite a turnabout, as the efficacy of defensive walls had declined precipitously since the age of the long bow. Barbarians still menace, of course. But the rekindled enthusiasm for defensive walls is a response to a different kind of threat. San Francisco is contemplating a huge tidal wall across its bay to fend off sea rise and the attendant dousing of some of the world’s most expensive real estate. Miami is weighing the damage a sea wall would do to tourist vistas against the damage a rising sea might do absent a wall. New Orleans, after $14 billion in levee construction, is an armored metropolis. Norfolk, Virginia, another low-lying city exposed to a surging sea, is spending a few hundred million federal dollars on a downtown sea wall. New York City, which has flooded in two devastating storms so far this century, is building a $1.45 billion series of walls, floodgates and underground drainage, a modest down payment on the city’s defense against rising tides and storm surge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Francis Wilkinson, Bloomberg

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    May 03, 2017 —
    Getting a notification from OSHA that your company is being investigated for a health or safety violation is an unwanted disruption to your business that could lead to a hefty monetary fine. Worse yet, if your company is found to have committed multiple violations, OSHA may categorize your company as a severe violator, which makes you subject to follow-up inspections. In the last 6 years, OSHA has added 520 companies to the Severe Violator Enforcement Program - sixty percent of which are in the construction industry. New OSHA regulations impacting the construction industry may result in more companies facing investigations and fines, or worse yet, laying off workers and unable to compete for new work. In 2013, OSHA proposed a new mandate to reduce silicosis in workers. The mandate, which was revised multiple times before being made final in March 2016, requires that employers ensure their workers are exposed to no more than 50 micrograms of crystalline silica in an eight hour period (down from the current standard of 250 micrograms). Under the new mandate, employers are also held to heightened reporting requirements, protective measures and medical testing for employees with extended exposure to silica. In the construction industry alone, OSHA believes the new mandate will prevent 1,080 cases of silicosis and more than 560 deaths. Builder and trade groups believe the new mandate will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost the building industry billions of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the Silica Rule will cost homebuilders $1,500 per start. While the two sides mount their arguments and seek support, how to implement the rule and its long term feasibility are still contested questions. Recognizing the challenges employers will have with the heightened requirements of the Silica Rule, OSHA just announced that enforcement is being delayed 90 days to develop additional guidance for implementation of the rule in the construction industry. The new start date for enforcement of the Silica Rule is September 23, 2017.* Many in the industry are hoping the Trump administration repeals the Silica Rule like they have “blacklisting” and the Volks rule. However, until that happens, OSHA expects your company to implement processes to ensure compliance by the new start date. *The Silica Rule was adopted by Cal/OSHA in August 2016 even though Cal/OSHA’s own silica standard had been in place since 2008. Cal/OSHA adopted the federal standard with the June 23, 2017 effective date; however; in an effort to synchronize with OSHA, Cal/OSHA recently announced that the effective date in California will also be September 23, 2017. Nathan Owens is the Las Vegas Managing Partner of Newmeyer & Dillion, and represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. For questions related to the OSHA and the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Nathan.Owens@ndlf.com. Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer is an associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office. Dutch’s practice concentrates on the areas of business litigation, labor and employment law, and construction litigation. For questions related to OSHA or the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Dutch.Schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

    May 15, 2023 —
    In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
    Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com