BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio expert witness roofingColumbus Ohio window expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expertsColumbus Ohio building expertColumbus Ohio civil engineering 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


    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    How Finns Cut Construction Lead Times in Half

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

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

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Break out the Neon: ‘80s Era Davis-Bacon “Prevailing Wage” Definition Restored in DOL Final Rule

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

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

    No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

    GRSM Attorneys Selected to 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Why Metro Atlanta Is the Poster Child for the US Housing Crisis

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

    Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones
    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. Drawing 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

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    November 13, 2013 —
    The streets around the Omni Building in Lubbock, Texas have been barricaded for an indefinite period, since the marble panels have been falling off the building. The panels weight about 300 pounds each. The building’s owners attempted to remedy the problem by replacing the marble with stucco, but that too came loose in the wind and fell to the ground. The city issued a stop work order preventing the installation of any more stucco. The city “told them that all needed to come down, both the old and the new,” according to Steve O’Neil, the city’s chief building official. The city has filed a lawsuit to compel the owners to fix the building. Glen Robertson, Lubbock’s mayor, sees another possible solution, “or demolish it because, as it stands right now, it is truly a health and safety hazard to our citizens. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    October 16, 2013 —
    The residents of Villa Lago at Renaissance Commons will be relieved of their problems with defective Chinese drywall, according to an announcement from their legal counsel, Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Gary E. Mason, a founding member of the firm, announced to homeowners that remediation would begin on November 1. “The project will start with about 30 units on the top floor and will continue floor by floor for the next 12 months.” Residents will be moved out of their units for about three months while all drywall is removed and replaced. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    January 27, 2020 —
    For subrogation practitioners dealing with an installation-based statute of repose, knowing what is an improvement to real property is the first battle in what can, but does not have to be, a long fight. Like many other states, Tennessee’s statute of repose bars claims based on improvements to real property. Tennessee’s statute of repose runs four years after substantial completion of the improvement. See Tennessee Code Ann. § 28-3-202. In the case of Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E A, 2019 Tenn.App. LEXIS 464, 2019 WL 4464816, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee examined whether or not the work done by the defendant, Olshan Foundation Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E.A. (Olshan) — which addressed bowing walls, cracks in the foundation and walls and water intrusion — qualified as improvements to real property for the purposes of the statute of repose. The court held that the work by Olshan essentially amounted to repairs, and did not qualify as improvements to real property. In Maddox, the plaintiff, Rachel Maddox (Maddox), noticed cracking in her home in 2005 and hired Olshan to assess the issue and conduct necessary repairs. Olshan made several recommendations and the parties agreed on Olshan’s proposal for the price of $27,000. From their initial work in 2005 until late 2011, Olshan visited the property several times to address ongoing structural issues with the home. Eventually, eight months after Olshan told Maddox they could not fix the house and failed to return her phone calls, Maddox filed suit, alleging fraud against the company. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff for $187,000, plus $15,0000 in punitive damages. Among other holdings, the court rejected Olshan’s statute of repose defense. Olshan appealed, raising the statute of repose issue again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    March 01, 2017 —
    The Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed what impact, if any, a lender’s credit bid at an Arizona trustee’s sale has on an insurer’s liability under Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the standard’s lender’s title policy (“Policy”), holding in Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 241 Ariz. 334, 387 P.3d 1263 (February 7, 2017) as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Policy, entitled “Continuation of Insurance,” not Section 9, entitled “Reduction of Insurance; Reduction or Termination of Liability,” applies when a lender acquires property at a trustee sale by “either a full- or partial-credit bid” since Section 2 directly addresses the existence and amount of coverage in such circumstances. Id. at 1267. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Herold, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Herold may be contacted at rherold@swlaw.com

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    January 04, 2023 —
    Bluestone Coke, a 100-year old Birmingham. Ala. factory that produces a key component in steelmaking and is partially owned by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, must pay nearly $1 million under a Dec. 9 state consent decree for violating federal clean air rules by releasing toxic emissions from coke ovens. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

    March 21, 2022 —
    One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

    Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

    January 23, 2023 —
    Starting January 1, 2023, real estate developers in Oregon and California will no longer be required to build off-street parking facilities for certain projects located near public transit. Both states enacted new rules during the course of 2022 which are effective as of the beginning of 2023, and which seek to reduce the costs of building at least some new projects in major population centers. In California, A.B. 2097 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, and prohibits city governments throughout the state (including in charter cities) from enforcing any local land use provisions which would require the developer to build parking spaces as part of their project if the project is located within one half-mile of a major public transit stop. The law applies to both residential and commercial projects. Cities can continue mandating parking for individual projects if they find that doing so is important to support the development of affordable housing—this exception was added to allay concerns that the bill would undermine “density bonus” programs which have become an important tool for the promotion of new affordable housing development around the state. In Oregon, following a 2020 executive order by Governor Kate Brown, the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (the body responsible for land use and planning regulation in Oregon) embarked on a two-year rulemaking process which culminated in July of 2022 with the approval of a set of “Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules.” Like the California legislation, these rules (in part) limit the ability of Oregon’s most populous cities to enforce parking minimums for new development projects. Unlike the California law, the Oregon rules encourage cities simply to repeal their parking mandates entirely. Cities subject the new rules which choose not to repeal their parking mandates in full must, as an alternative, adopt new local policies to reduce the amount of land dedicated to parking in certain geographies or in connection with certain uses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Allan Van Vliet, Pillsbury
    Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    July 31, 2013 —
    Although it’s only about a year old, there are already complaints about construction defects at Lubertha Johnson Estates, a property for low-income seniors in Southern Nevada. The 112-unit project is currently the subject of a construction defect lawsuit, with residents complaining about roof leaks, defective gates, and other problems. Jane Ann Morrison, writing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, also notes that when the director of public housing operations presented resident complaints to the board of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, a few defects seemed to have crept into their complaints, errors that weren’t in the one residents supplied to the reporter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of