BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio fenestration expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expert witness public projectsColumbus Ohio building code expert witnessColumbus Ohio consulting engineersColumbus Ohio architecture expert witnessColumbus Ohio concrete expert witnessColumbus Ohio civil engineering 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


    Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential

    Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

    Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Time To “Construct” New Social Media Policies

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    Hilti Partners with Canvas, a Construction Robotics Company

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    Contractor Entitled to Continued Defense Against Allegations of Faulty Construction

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    Harrisburg Sought Support Before Ruinous Incinerator Retrofit

    Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    The Power of Team Bonding: Transforming Workplaces for the Better

    Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Construction of World's Tallest Building to Resume With New $1.9B Contract for Jeddah Tower

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    6 Ways to Reduce Fire Safety Hazards in BESS

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice
    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

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    February 14, 2013 —
    The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    May 13, 2019 —
    In a decision released on March 31, in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for Idaho held, without benefit of oral argument, that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion for summary judgment should be granted, and accordingly, the Sacketts had violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by making improvements to 0.63 acres of land they owned without a required CWA permit when the land qualified as a “wetlands.” The EPA had determined the Sacketts’ “property is subject to the CWA because it contains wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake, a traditionally ‘navigable water,’ and, additionally, their property is wetland adjacent to a tributary and similarly situated to other wetlands and has a significant nexus to Priest Lake.” The District Court rejected the Sacketts’ arguments that their property was not a “wetlands” subject to the CWA. 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

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    November 03, 2016 —
    White and Williams received one National Tier 1 ranking and four Metropolitan Tier 1 rankings in U.S. News - Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" for 2017. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience. National Tier 1 Insurance Law Metropolitan Tier 1 Boston Insurance Law Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia Real Estate Law Tax Law Metropolitan Tier 2 Boston Mergers and Acquisitions Law Philadelphia Construction Law Insurance Law Tax and Estates Law Metropolitan Tier 3 Boston Employment Law - Management Labor Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Philadelphia Patent Law Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    March 25, 2024 —
    Orange County, Calif. (March 4, 2024) - Orange County Partners Esther P. Holm and Alexandra Anast obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a real estate matter involving a failed real estate transaction. The property at issue, which was located in the West Hollywood Hills and had beautiful views, was undergoing extensive remodeling. There were several bids for its purchase. Ultimately, the plaintiff, a real estate investor, was awarded the purchase. The plaintiff and the seller entered into a real estate purchase agreement, but the plaintiff failed to release the physical contingencies within the 17-day period prescribed by the contract. Instead, the plaintiff demanded a reduction in price, which the seller rejected. The plaintiff then filed a lis pendens on the property, clouding the title and making it impossible for the sellers to sell the property to anyone else. The buyer and seller subsequently engaged counsel. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the seller as well as the real estate company and its agents. Prior to trial, the plaintiff and the seller reached a settlement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    August 13, 2019 —
    Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    June 01, 2020 —
    In Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply under Rhode Island law. Travelers insured Textron from 1966 to 1987. In 2011, Textron was sued by a California resident, Esters, for damages caused by mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure in California. The action was defended and settled by Travelers and other insurers under reservations of rights. Textron sued Travelers in California for a declaration that Travelers owed duties to defend and indemnify the Esters action. Travelers cross-complained, seeking reimbursement. The case turned on choice of law for trigger of coverage as between California and Rhode Island. Citing Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, the Textron court noted that California applies a continuous trigger to continuous or progressively deteriorating injury. By contrast, in Rhode Island a covered occurrence exists “when the damage … manifests itself, … is discovered or, … in the exercise of reasonable diligence is discoverable.” (Citing Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (R.I. 2002) 754 A.2d 742.) According to Travelers, the Esters action was not covered under Rhode Island law because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2010, after Travelers was off the risk. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Latin America’s Biggest Corporate Crime Gets a Worthy Epic

    January 04, 2021 —
    As much as pouring cement and building towers, Brazilian construction dynasty Odebrecht was famed for its political panache. “I get down in the mud with the pigs but come out the other side clean in my white suit,” Norberto Odebrecht, founder of the legacy contractor, liked to boast back in the 1970s and 1980s. The catchphrase was shorthand for what became a patently Brazilian way of doing business – the art of buying influence and coming away unsoiled, or at least unincarcerated – among porcine politicians and bribe-truffling officials. In half a century and over three generations, the family firm from northeast Brazil grew into a multinational engineering colossus, hurling up grand public works from the Andes to Angola. Shady pacts with political grifters and bagmen were just part of the deal behind the build-up and seemingly nothing a little Brazilian bonhomie and contract skimming couldn’t tidy up. Until it didn’t. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mac Margolis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Margolis may be contacted at mmargolis14@bloomberg.net

    What Makes Building Ventilation Good Enough to Withstand a Pandemic?

    January 11, 2021 —
    In October, students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, held an intimate jazz concert at a bar downtown, with an audience of about 20 peers and faculty members — all of whom held digital passes indicating they’d recently tested negative for Covid-19. Two jazz ensembles performed, sometimes with masks and coverings for their instruments, and other times without. Behind the scenes, mechanical engineering professor Ty Newell tinkered with the airflow, turning the exhaust and recirculation fans on and off at different points during the night. His students monitored for changes in the air quality, using a special instrument to measure the concentrations of carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter, both key to determining if a building is well ventilated. The experiment sought to highlight the significance of proper ventilation, something that Newell said hadn’t been paid enough attention, until now. As evidence suggesting Covid-19 can spread through aerosol transmission continues to mount, health experts are focused less on sanitizing surfaces and more on improving indoor air quality. In December, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally put out its ventilation recommendations to combat Covid-19, based on standards set by ASHRAE, or the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg