BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio stucco expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expertsColumbus Ohio construction cost estimating expert witnessColumbus Ohio defective construction expertColumbus Ohio building expertColumbus Ohio construction expert witnessesColumbus Ohio hospital construction expert witness
    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


    Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

    Out of the Black

    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

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

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines

    AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

    The Problem With Building a New City From Scratch

    Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Wall Street’s Palm Beach Foray Fuels Developer Office Rush

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts

    Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks Among Top 25 Firms on NLJ’s 2021 Women in Law Scorecard

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    Court Orders City to Pay for Sewer Backups

    A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

    Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

    Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Repairs to Hurricane-damaged Sanibel Causeway Completed in 105 Days

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam
    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

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    December 16, 2019 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    November 29, 2021 —
    The Situation California Construction Subcontractors Face in Obtaining Payment: California construction subcontractors find themselves faced with a significant payment issue every time they are asked to sign a subcontract on a major project. Invariably, the subcontract the prime contractor presents to the subcontractor for signature will contain a clause by which the prime contractor imposes a condition on payment from the prime contractor to the subcontractor. The condition will be either one or the other of two general types. Either the prime contractor will specify that it never has to pay the subcontractor if the prime contractor itself is not paid by the owner (a “pay-if-paid” clause), or the prime contractor will pay the subcontractor only after the prime contractor has first exhausted all its efforts to obtain payment from the owner through litigation, arbitration or otherwise, possibly delaying payment to subcontractors by months or even years (a “pay-when-paid” clause). Goal of the Article: The goal of this article is to draw a distinction between the pay-if-paid and pay-when-paid clauses, discuss the legality of these clauses in California, the problems these clauses create for subcontractors, advise the reader of helpful recent legal developments in this area of law, address the possibility of a further legislative remedy to address the issue, and discuss what the subcontractor might do to protect itself while awaiting a legislative remedy that may or may not ever arrive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    July 18, 2022 —
    Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    September 14, 2017 —
    Weathered and weakened portions of concrete contributed to the Oroville Dam's spillway failing last February, causing panic and mass evacuations in Northern California. This was part of the findings by an Independent Forensic Team (IFT), appointed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Aragon, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    July 23, 2014 —
    According to Willits News, slow-moving trucks with cameras attached rolled through Fort Briggs, attracting attention from homeowners in the community. People began mentioning the trucks on social media sites, with questions regarding what the cameras on the trucks were recording. Osmose Utilities General Manager, Jason Milligan, told Willits News that the trucks were “surveying overhead power poles and lines for PG&E.” "We're not looking for anything but what's overhead," Mulligan said, according to Willits News. "We find defects or issues with construction ... 20 or 30 feet off the ground, which are safety issues. We don't scan anything down towards people's homes." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

    April 05, 2021 —
    The Texas Supreme Court has accepted certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify Texas’ eight-corners rule for determining the existence of a duty to defend. In Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to provide guidance on Texas insurance law. In Bitco, the insured was sued for negligently drilling an irrigation well. The insured allegedly got a drilling bit stuck in a bore hole, refused to fix the issue, and eventually abandoned the well. The policy did not cover continuing property damage known to the insured before the policy incepted. The policy period ran from Oct. 6, 2015 to Oct. 6, 2016, and the parties stipulated the drill bit became stuck in November 2014. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
    Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    September 07, 2020 —
    Despite the ongoing pandemic, states are opening up for business and establishing a new normal. This determination to move forward includes pushing public transportation projects full steam ahead. While this may be good news for certain industries, it may not be for commercial property owners hoping to see a slow down to public projects and avoid a taking of private property. As many grapple with new economic realities, we examine the approaches employed by states in the southeast to manage construction of public projects in this unprecedented time. GEORGIA The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is moving forward with all of its previously funded public projects, including the massive I-285 Top-End Project, designated as a “Major Mobility Project” for the Atlanta metro region. Affecting approximately 260 property owners along I-285 and Georgia Highway 400, environmental review of the project continues. GDOT anticipates a contract let date in 2022 and construction start in 2023. Like ocean liners, these projects don’t turn on a dime. Under the 2015 Transportation Funding Act, the budgeted funds cannot be shifted to other needs or projects due to economic shutdown. Once environmental review is complete, GDOT will approve the final design and move toward acquiring right-of-way from affected property owners. Reprinted courtesy of Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    March 12, 2015 —
    If you work in the construction industry in California you’re likely familiar with mechanics liens. But there’s one other type of lien available on construction projects in California: The design professional lien. So, here’s a blueprint of what you need to know. What is a design professional lien? A design professional lien, like a mechanics lien, creates a security interest in real property for services rendered by a design professional prior to commencement of construction. If the design professional is not paid, the design professional can file a lawsuit to foreclose on the design professional lien to have the property sold and the proceeds from the sale used to satisfy the amount of the design professional lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com