BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio defective construction expertColumbus Ohio expert witness structural engineerColumbus Ohio construction defect expert witnessColumbus Ohio OSHA expert witness constructionColumbus Ohio consulting architect expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction project management 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


    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    S&P Suspended and Fined $80 Million in SEC, State Mortgage Bond Cases

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    Run Spot...Run!

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    2023 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

    Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    New Stormwater Climate Change Tool

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    New Insurance Case: Owners'​ Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2024

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed
    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

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    October 30, 2013 —
    The former mayor of Springfield, Florida has been arrested on charges of insurance fraud. More than a year ago, an investigator for the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation found that an employee of Walker’s construction company was working without workers’ compensation and issued a stop work order. Walker’s employees continued work. The charges were delayed because Walker challenged the stop work order. Once it was determined that the stop work order was issued properly, Walker was charged with a third-degree felony. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    February 10, 2012 —

    As One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.

    In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.

    Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.

    Read the full story…

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

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    December 01, 2017 —
    A California Court of Appeal has confirmed that additional insured endorsements (“AIE”) granting coverage for liability arising out of a named insured’s “ongoing operations,” and in effect during those “ongoing operations,” do not require that the liability arise while the named insured is performing work. McMillin Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal. Ct. App., November 14, 2017, Case No. D069814. In McMillin, a construction defect insurance coverage action, Lexington Insurance Company argued that McMillin had no liability to homeowners until after their homes closed escrow; thus, McMillin did not face liability while the named insureds’ work was ongoing. The Court of Appeal rejected Lexington’s argument, finding that the “ongoing operations” AIEs provide only that McMillin’s liability “be ‘linked’ through a ‘minimal causal connection or incidental relationship’ with [the named insureds’] ongoing operations.” (internal citations omitted). The Court reasoned that Lexington had not established that all of the damage in the underlying action occurred after the named insureds completed their work, thus Lexington had not established as a matter of law that there was no potential for coverage for McMillin under the policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Brantley, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Brantley may be contacted at kcb@paynefears.com

    Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

    November 01, 2021 —
    For centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed. From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    June 22, 2016 —
    The project teams for Edmonton’s two problem bridge-replacement projects have put most of their woes behind them—if trips to civil court and possible late-completion penalties are excluded. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted with questions or comments at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    January 02, 2024 —
    Boston, Mass. (December 13, 2023) - Judge Michael Ricciuti, who presides over the Massachusetts state asbestos litigation docket, has been appointed to a new role as Chief Justice of Massachusetts Superior Court, effective December 22, 2023. The appointment is expected to result in the end of his tenure overseeing the state asbestos litigation. Judge Ricciuti was appointed by Governor Charlie Baker to the Superior Court in 2017. He has served in five counties and serves six-month rotations in the Business Litigation Session, in addition to his role overseeing the Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation docket. His current committee participation includes serving on the Superior Court Judicial Education Committee and the Supreme Judicial Court Advisory Committee on Massachusetts Evidence Law. He also serves as a judicial mentor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    July 01, 2014 —
    The number of contracts to purchase previously owned U.S. homes jumped in May by the most in more than four years, a sign the residential-real estate market is rebounding after a slow start to the year. The pending home sales index climbed 6.1 percent, the biggest advance since April 2010, after a revised 0.5 percent increase in April, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The gain exceeded the most optimistic estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists, whose median forecast called for a 1.5 percent gain. Housing demand is benefiting from cheaper borrowing costs, a stronger employment outlook and easier access to credit for some households. At the same time, higher prices and limited income gains are keeping the improvement in the residential real estate from becoming more broad-based. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanna Smialek, Bloomberg
    Ms. Smialek may be contacted at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net