BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio construction project management expert witnessesColumbus Ohio construction expert witness public projectsColumbus Ohio construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction defect expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction project management expert witnessColumbus Ohio structural engineering expert witnessesColumbus Ohio roofing construction expert
    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


    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Round and Round: Inside the Las Vegas Sphere

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

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

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    The Miller Act Explained

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

    BWB&O Senior Associate Kyle Riddles and Associate Alexandria Heins Obtain a Trial Victory in a Multi-Million Dollar Case!

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Elyria, Ohio, to Invest $250M to Halt Illegal Sewage into Black River

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

    Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder

    Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    Avoid a Derailed Settlement in Construction

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

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

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II
    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

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    July 31, 2013 —
    A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    November 20, 2013 —
    The New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, has ruled that when an insurer disclaims duty to defend, “if the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would have otherwise negated the duty to indemnify.” The insurer who makes a failed claim that there was no duty to defend cannot thereafter claim exclusions. This recent New York decision is discussed by Allen R. Wolff and Eric R. Reed of Anderson Kill in their Policyholder Advisor. They note that the decision “confirms that the estoppel rule applies in New York , as it does in at least four other states.” But this may not be the last word. American Guarantee made a motion for reargument, which the court granted. The case will return to the court in January 2014. They note that “if paying defense costs is the only consequence an insurance company faces for breaching its duty to defend the insured, an insurance company has a financial incentive to ‘kick the can down the road.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    November 17, 2016 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – Nov 15th, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that managing partner Jeff Dennis was selected as one of the 500 most influential business people and opinion shapers in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal (OCBJ). Dennis will be recognized in OCBJ’s inaugural issue, OC500, publishing November 14, 2016. Located in the Newport Beach office, Dennis currently serves as the Firm’s Managing Partner and specializes in a variety of litigation arenas, including construction, real estate and business litigation. He also handles insurance and higher education matters. Tom Newmeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Co-founding Partner, believes the award is representative of the leadership displayed by Dennis. “Jeff is an uncanny consensus builder, and you can see his steady hand in the firms’ growth and success. This recognition is a testament to his strong commitment to the community and his ability to facilitate innovative changes in Orange County.” Dennis believes that community participation is a vital part of his law practice. He currently serves on the Executive Leadership Team for the American Heart Association’s Orange County Heart Walk. Under Dennis’ leadership, the firm proudly supports the OC Heart Walk, with over 150 participants joining Team N&D in 2016. As such, he volunteered to serve in the Orange County District Attorney’s selective Trial Advocacy Partnership (TAP) program. He is the past president of the Occidental College Board of Governors and helped lead Occidental’s Alumni Association as its former Orange County Regional Chair. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    September 26, 2022 —
    Division 2 of the Court of Appeals[1] recently addressed a property owner’s liability to a contractor who is injured performing work on their property. The action arose from an incident in which Virgil Mihaila, a remodeling contractor, fell from a ladder while installing a new roof on the Troths’ shed and landed on a metal grounding rod that was sticking over a foot out of the ground. Mihaila saw the grounding rod as he was working and recognized the danger, but he claimed that he could not complete the roofing job without encountering it. Although he tried to position his ladder so that he would avoid the grounding rod if he fell, he somehow fell off the ladder and landed on the grounding rod, sustaining multiple rib fractures and a punctured lung. Mihaila filed a complaint against the Troths, alleging that they were negligent in failing to protect him from the danger of the grounding rod sticking out of the ground. The Troths denied that they were negligent and asserted the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. The Troths filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, stating that summary judgment was appropriate regarding the Troths’ duty because Mihaila “became aware of the risk, undertook to encounter the risk, and made his own efforts to mitigate the risk.” The trial court denied Mihaila’s motion for reconsideration and Mihaila appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

    July 25, 2022 —
    Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. 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

    Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often

    November 27, 2023 —
    As those of you who regularly read Musings are aware, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my law practice and a big issue here at this construction law blog. I’ve discussed the picky requirements of the mechanic’s lien statutes in Virginia and how the 90 and 150-day rules are strictly enforced. However, a recent case out of the City of Norfolk Virginia Circuit Court cautions that while failure to meet these strict requirements may invalidate a lien, it only does so if the owner or general contractor seeking to invalidate the lien argues the invalidity and/or presents evidence of that invalidity either pretrial or during trial. In Premier Restoration LLC v. Barnes, the Court considered the following facts. The defendant homeowners had a house fire and the resulting damage was the subject of an insurance claim that was paid and checks sent to the homeowners. Premier filed a mechanic’s lien in response to Barnes’s failure to pay for Premier’s restoration construction services after Barnes’s home was destroyed by fire. Premier seeks a decree to enforce the lien, asking the court to order the sale of Barnes’s property to recover its damages or, alternatively, a judgment in its favor. With the Complaint seeking enforcement of the lien and damages for breach of contract, and this is a key point, Premier provided a copy of the mechanic’s lien along with the affidavit that is part of the statutory form swearing that the Owner was justly indebted to Premiere. The homeowners filed a counterclaim for unfinished work, including unfinished punch list work. After a trial during which no evidence regarding either the timeliness of the lien recording or whether any of the work sought to be encompassed in the lien was performed outside of the statutory 150-day window was presented by either side, the defendants filed a post-trial motion seeking to invalidate the lien as including sums for work outside of the 150-day window. 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

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

    July 19, 2021 —
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will revise a 2020 final rule clarifying requirements for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (June 2, 2021). CWA Section 401 requires states and tribes to certify that any discharges associated with a federal permit will comply with applicable state or tribal water quality requirements. In an effort to eliminate 401 certification being used as a tool for delaying or imposing conditions unrelated to protecting water quality on federal permits, the 2020 rule established limits on the scope and timeline for review and required any conditions on certification to be water-quality related. State and Tribal governments and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing it constrained state and tribal decision-making authority by limiting the term “other appropriate requirements of State law” in CWA Section 401(d) to “water quality requirements” and “point source discharges.” With EPA’s decision to revise the rule, many believe these same scope and timing limitations will be targets for change. Clients with experience, positive or negative, under the 2020 rule should consider submitting comments by the August 2, 2021 deadline. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    March 04, 2019 —
    When American colonists planned downtown Annapolis, Maryland in 1695, they wanted easy access to the sea. Almost 325 years later, the sea is now closer than ever. It’s so close, in fact, that 16 small businesses lost roughly 2 percent of their revenue in 2017. In a first-of-its-kind study, Stanford University and Naval Academy researchers looked at the effect of sea-level rise on a single city-block. Specifically, they examined sunny-day floods—inundation that occurs when infrastructure built for lower waters is no longer sufficient to keep back the highest tides—at a central parking lot at City Dock. As sea levels rise, these “nuisance floods” are becoming more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the U.S. grew from two per year to nearly 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Roston, Bloomberg