BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio construction scheduling expert witnessColumbus Ohio expert witness concrete failureColumbus Ohio roofing construction expertColumbus Ohio testifying construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio forensic architectColumbus Ohio multi family design expert witnessColumbus Ohio building consultant 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


    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    What is a Personal Injury?

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Power to the Office Worker

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment, Dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) Claim Against Municipal Entities

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension

    Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required
    Corporate Profile

    COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Columbus, Ohio Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Columbus' most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Columbus, Ohio

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    September 23, 2019 —
    Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    January 06, 2012 —

    The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

    Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

    Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

    On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/17/22) – Glass Ceilings, Floating Homes and the Inflation Reduction Act

    September 12, 2022 —
    This week’s round-up features the construction industry’s latest happenings: the Inflation Reduction Act, women shattering the glass ceiling, eco-friendly floating homes, and more.
    • The Inflation Reduction Act contains approximately $5 billion for programs to accelerate the construction industry’s shift toward green building materials. (Julie Strupp, Construction Dive)
    • According to a new analysis from consultancy Rider Levett Bucknall, the speed of growth for construction costs has only gotten faster. (Erik Sherman, Globe St.)
    • Record vacancies in the construction industry has created the opportunity for women to step into what’s previously been an all-male business. (Craig Torres & Maria Paula Mijares Torres, Bloomberg)
    • A midlife crisis hits office buildings, with the late-30s/early-40s stable of office product accounting for about a third of the national market today. (Commercial Observer)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    July 14, 2016 —
    Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    March 12, 2015 —
    A duty to defend existed for alleged construction defects despite the designated work exclusion and the pre-existing damage exclusion. Gemini Ins. Co. v. N. Am Capacity Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14836 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2015). Olsen Construction Company held three separate policies issued by Gemini from September 2002 to February 2005. North American issued a CGL policy to Olsen for the period February 2005 to February 2006. Olsen conducted repair work on decks at the location between 2002 and 2003. Olsen was sued for construction defects by the Homeowners' Association (HOA). Gemini defended and also tendered to North American. When North American refused the tender, Gemini sued for declaratory and equitable relief related to North American's duty to defend Olsen in the underlying case. North American moved for summary judgment. 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

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    April 20, 2020 —
    On Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants. The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.” As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    September 01, 2011 —

    In Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., No. 26909 (S.C. Aug. 22, 2011), insured Crossman was the developer and general contractor of several condominium projects constructed by Crossman’s subcontractors over multiple years. After completion, Crossman was sued by homeowners alleging negligent construction of exterior components resulting in moisture penetration property damage to non-defective components occurring during multiple years.  Crossman settled the underlying lawsuit and then filed suit against its CGL insurers to recover the settlement amount.  Crossman settled with all of the insurers except for Harleysville.  Crossman and Harleysville stipulated that the only coverage issue was whether there was an “occurrence.”  The trial court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Crossman, determining that there was an “occurrence.” The trial court also ruled that Harleysville was liable for the entire settlement amount without offset for the amounts paid by the other insurers.  

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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