BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio forensic architectColumbus Ohio expert witness windowsColumbus Ohio civil engineer expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction project management expert witnessesColumbus Ohio expert witness structural engineerColumbus Ohio consulting engineersColumbus Ohio construction defect 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


    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

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

    The Housing Market Is Softening, But Home Depot and Lowe's Are Crushing It

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    There's No Such Thing as a Free House

    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

    NTSB Outlines Pittsburgh Bridge Structure Specifics, Finding Collapse Cause Will Take Months

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    The Status of OSHA’s Impending Heat Stress Standard

    How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Lien Law Change in Idaho

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    Construction Costs Up
    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

    Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend

    August 12, 2024 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for water damage under a homeowners' policy, but granted leave to amend. Thompson v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98486 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2024). The insureds' first amended complaint alleged they "suffered a sudden and accidental water loss below their slab in their home." A plumber hired by the insureds discovered "a copper pipe burst inside a structural concrete footing between a manifold in the living room and the water heater." The insureds notified their insurer, State Farm. Claim adjuster Andrea Acevedo conducted a visual inspection. The complaint alleged she did not "inspect or view the pipe, or have a testing conducted on the pipe." Acevedo sent a letter denying the insureds' claim based upon her finding that "because the loss was caused by a slab leak, there is no coverage available for the loss." The letter explained that the hot water supply line under the home failed due to wear, tear, deterioration and/or electrolysis. The predominant cause of loss to the failed pipe was due to one or a combination of rust, electrolysis, corrosion, wear, tear and/or deterioration. The policy did not cover water damage caused by water from below the surface of the ground. Further coverage for wear, tear, deterioration, rot, mold, maintenance, water from below the surface of the ground and a continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water was excluded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    October 30, 2013 —
    Housing prices in the largest metro regions beat expectations, rising 12.8% in August as compared to a year before. Analysts were expecting weaker increases; instead these have been the fastest increases in seven years. The metropolitan area with the largest increase was Las Vegas, where houses increased in price by 29.2%. Three California regions — San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — also saw increases of greater than 20%. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    June 28, 2013 —
    Repair work is underway on the Palladium concert hall in Carmel, Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis, a contractor for the project says that the repairs will destroy evidence that they need to defect against additional construction defect allegations. Work stopped in 2009 for three months of repairs after problems were found in the steel roof supports. Steel Supply & Engineering Co. has claimed that the column failures are due to errors in the design. They say that if the repair work continues, it “would result in the spoliation of evidence, and will irreparably harm the defendants, and ultimately adversely affect their ability to protect their rights in the action.” They have asked the court to bring repairs to a stop until they are able to inspect the steel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    February 12, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio. Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies. Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Multifamily Building Pushes New Jersey to Best Year since 2007

    December 04, 2013 —
    One project that might be seen as typical for New Jersey is Fair Lawn Promenade, which is being built at the former site of a Kodak film processing plant. The development will revitalize an existing area, rather than send people further from the cities into the New Jersey countryside. The development is within walking distance of a commuter rail station. This project and ones like it have pushed New Jersey to a 37% increase in residential building over last year. Almost 60% of this year’s residential building in New Jersey has been multifamily. And it’s likely to stay that way for a while, according to Patrick O’Keefe, an economist at CohnReznick. He says that millennials have less of a “commitment to the American dream of homeownership.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    September 22, 2016 —
    The policyholder's attempt to extend the duty to defend analysis beyond the complaint's allegations and the four-corners of the policy failed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 163 (Wis. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2016). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    December 09, 2011 —

    Although the excess carrier was given inadequate notice of the underlying arbitration, the trial court determined it shared responsibility with the primary carrier for the arbitration award. Finding disputed issues of fact, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Century Surety Co., 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 2488 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011).

    The primary insurer, American States, issued two liability policies to Professional Home Builders (PHB), a siding contractor. The policies were for successive years, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Each policy had annual limits of $1 million per occurrence. PHB also had a commercial excess liability policy for 1999-2000 with Century Surety Company.

    PHB was sued by Residential Investment Partners (RIP) for construction defects after moisture entered the building envelope, causing decay and damage. Century’s expert determined the decay started before the 1999-2000 policy period.

    RIP and PHB went to arbitration.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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