BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio hospital construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio expert witness concrete failureColumbus Ohio construction defect expert witnessColumbus Ohio stucco expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction claims expert witnessColumbus Ohio fenestration expert witnessColumbus Ohio architect 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


    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    The Black Woman Architect Who Hopes to Change the Face of Design in America

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    One Stat About Bathrooms Explains Why You Can’t Find a House

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Warren Renews Criticism of Private Equity’s Role in Housing

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR

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

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Surety Trends to Keep an Eye on in the Construction Industry

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

    Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    CGL Policy May Not Cover Cybersecurity and Data-Related Losses

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    US Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Chicago Cubs Stadium Renovation

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

    Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Not All Design-Build Projects are Created Equal

    Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

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

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge

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

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Jae Lynn Huckaba, Awarded Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s Rookie of the Year Award

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

    ICYMI: Highlights From ABC Convention 2024

    Yellowstone Park Aims for Quick Reopening After Floods
    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

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer finding there was no duty to defend. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23918 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020). Mac Contractors entered into a contract with homeowners to serve as general contractor for the construction of a custom residence. Problems arose during construction and Mac eventually led the job site before completing the project. The home owners sued, alleging that Mac and its subcontractors had left the residence "replete with construction defects." Damages were sought for having to repair and remediate all defective work performed by Mac. Mac tendered under its CGL policy to its insurer, Southern-Owners. A defense was granted, but later withdrawn when Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Mac. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Southern-Owners based on the exclusion for "Damage to Your Work." The Eleventh Circuit vacated on appeal, concluding that the underlying complaint could fairly be construed to allege damages that fell outside of the exclusion. 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

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    September 03, 2015 —
    Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    January 13, 2014 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a construction case (Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v United States District Court for the Western District of Texas)—an occurrence newsworthy of itself, according to The California Construction Law Blog. Large general contractors may benefit by the court’s decision regarding “the enforceability of forum selection clauses.” According to the blog, the U. S. Supreme Court set three standards, “which, together, strongly support the enforceability of forum selection clauses: (1) The party defying a forum selection clause bears the burden of proof…. (2) The inconvenience to the party defying a forum selection clause bears no weight…. [and] (3) The law of the selected forum applies when determining whether to transfer a case.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    May 10, 2013 —
    Nevada’s SB161 has failed to move out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill would have reduced the time in which homeowners could file suits and also would have forbidden the inclusion of attorney’s fees as damages. A similar bill remains active in the Nevada House. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    February 06, 2019 —
    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities against discrimination in three important settings: 1. Employment (ADA Title I) 2. Government Services and Public Transportation (ADA Title II) 3. Commercial Facilities and Places of Public Accommodation (ADA Title III) Since business owners typically act as both employers and facility managers, they must pay careful attention to Title I and Title III of the ADA. A business owner’s ADA compliance checklist should include the following: 1. ADA Compliance Audit for Structural Accessibility. The ADA and its accompanying regulations set forth detailed legal standards and requirements for accessible design, which specify, for example, the minimum width of doors to conference rooms, the maximum height of public drinking fountains, and the maximum thickness of hallway carpeting. Many older buildings were built without features that accommodate people with disabilities, such that the ADA may require improvements to be made to existing facilities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle Carter, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
    Ms. Carter may be contacted at info@bremerwhyte.com

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    July 18, 2022 —
    What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    December 27, 2021 —
    The General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs: There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country. The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy: The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals. 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

    Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

    May 06, 2024 —
    The owner of the ship that destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing the indefinite closure of the port a week ago, is seeking to limit its liability to about $44 million. According to reporting by my Bloomberg News colleagues citing legal experts, the company — Grace Ocean — could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims. On Monday it filed a petition jointly with Synergy Marine, which was operating the Singapore-flagged container ship Dali. They claim the collapse of the bridge was “not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care” of the companies and that they shouldn’t be held liable for any loss or damage from the disaster. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brendan Murray, Bloomberg