BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio roofing construction expertColumbus Ohio construction expert witnessesColumbus Ohio building code compliance expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction claims expert witnessColumbus Ohio architectural expert witnessColumbus Ohio expert witness structural engineerColumbus Ohio expert witness roofing
    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


    COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Quick Note: Notice of Contest of Claim Against Payment Bond

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Microsoft Urges the Construction Industry to Deliver Lifecycle Value

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    Mississippi River Spends 40 Days At Flood Stage, Mayors Push for Infrastructure Funding

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

    Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

    Can Baltimore Get a Great Bridge?

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Where Do We Go From Here?

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy
    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

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    October 09, 2018 —
    The promise of public-private partnerships (P3s) seems irresistible. The $4.5-trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers says the U.S. must spend on at-risk infrastructure by 2025 is a backlog beyond the collective means of local, state and federal governments to fund and deliver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Fechner, GHD, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    June 15, 2020 —
    Many debate the pros, cons and claims of retainage—when one party to a construction contract withholds a percentage (typically 5%-10%) from an otherwise approved contractor pay application, and which typically is not paid until a project is substantially complete. If an owner withholds retainage from a prime contractor, typically the contractor will in turn withhold retainage from its subcontractors. While retainage has been part of the construction industry for decades, its concept, use (and abuse) have been under more discussion during the past 10 years. Based on heavy lobbying from primary subcontractor groups, state legislatures have passed laws to regulate retainage in commercial projects. Lenders have become more careful about loans and are frequently involved in retainage discussions. Bonded projects are subject to criticism when a surety does not step in and, like the mythical insurance company, write a check. Reprinted courtesy of David K. Taylor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at dtaylor@bradley.com

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    January 23, 2013 —
    Hawaii is having a bit of a building boom and with this, as Honolulu Civil Beat points out, comes a boom in construction defect litigation, noting that “if past experience is any indicator, the wave of construction will likely be followed by a surge in complex and, for attorneys at least, profitable litigation.” The article provides plenty of evidence to back up that assertion. Defect claims are already resulted in a settlement at Pinnacle Honolulu, a 37-unit luxury condominium project. The owners received a $2.4 million settlement after building code violations were discovered, including fire partitions that either were not fully extended or were breached in some fashion. Meanwhile, the owners of the Koolani Condominiums are still trying to collect on their $12 million arbitration award related to problems in the water system. Another luxury condominium project, the Hokua Condominiums, also has had problems with flooding from water pipes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    October 02, 2013 —
    Lennar Homes addressed a problem with EIFS in homes built in Texas in the 1990s by replacing every roof they had built. Some of those homes had problems with leaks, rotting, or termites, but other roofs hadn’t suffered any problems. Lennar’s insurers initially refused coverage. Lennar managed to settle with all but one, Markel American Insurance. Their dispute formed the case Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Insurance Co. This was first tried before a jury and eventually appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Brian S. Martin of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP discusses this case at Insurance Journal. Markel’s claim was that under the policy language, Lennar could not make voluntary payments without getting Markel’s consent, which they did not. But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, determining that Lennar took, as Mr. Martin notes, “a reasonable approach to a serious problem.” Markel also made the claim that the whole amount of the damages was not covered by the policy, as they did not view the policy as covering the cost of determining the extent of the damage. The Court disagreed, noting that “under no reasonable construction of the phrase can the cost of finding EIFS property damage in order to repair it not to be considered ‘because of the damage.’” Mr. Martin concludes by calling the Texas Supreme Court decision “a frontal assault on several critical provisions of liability policies that will assuredly lead to further litigation.” He also notes that the decision “may indicate a shift in the Court’s approach in insurance cases to a more result-oriented jurisprudence.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    March 12, 2015 —
    In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions. In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    June 28, 2013 —
    When inspectors found defective bolts in the construction of the Media Arts Center at L. A. Mission College, the contractor walked off the job. The project had been underway for about eighteen months. After problems were found with welds and bolts, the contractor informed the school that it could not complete the job. The California Division of the State Architect then required inspection of every weld and joint, leading to a dispute as to who was going to pay for it. At this point, only the first story has been inspected. Although the other two stories must be inspected, the new contractor is about to begin work on the building. James O’Reilly, the executive director for facilities, planning and development, said that “the main focus is on fixing the defective issues and getting construction completed so we can serve the Mission campus.” Still at question is how much SMC Construction received before they walked off the job. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Report: Civil Engineering Salaries and Job Satisfaction Are Strong and Climbing at a Faster Rate Than Past Reports

    October 16, 2023 —
    RESTON, Va. – Civil engineering salaries continue to trend up and at a higher rate than recent years according to the 2023 ASCE Civil Engineering Salary Report today released by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which cites a median pre-tax income from all sources of $128,000. Base salaries have risen by approximately 7% from 2022 to 2023, up from approximately 6% from 2021 to 2022 and 5% from 2020 to 2021. The median primary income for those civil engineers with a Professional Engineers license was $132,000, nearly $30,000 more than those with no licenses or certifications. "The current workforce crisis has created a great demand for civil engineers that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics states will continue for the next decade," said ASCE 2023 President Maria C. Lehman, P.E., ENV SP, NAC, F.ASCE. "When you consider the age and condition of much of our infrastructure, along with the additional funding being brought to bear, the demand will continue." The report also shows high job satisfaction and opportunities for career growth in 2023. Of the salary survey respondents, 66.3% reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their financial compensation, up from 63.3% in 2022. That number was even higher, though, when asked about overall job satisfaction: 86.7% said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs. In a field that plays such a large role in giving back to and shaping communities, employees want to feel like their role is impactful and creating positive change for others. The ASCE Civil Engineering Salary Report is released every fall, collected from responses of Society members about their jobs and financial compensation. This year's report is derived from over 3,200 member responses. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    October 10, 2013 —
    Although Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely. More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others. The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of