BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio consulting engineersColumbus Ohio window expert witnessColumbus Ohio roofing construction expertColumbus Ohio structural engineering expert witnessesColumbus Ohio construction defect expert witnessColumbus Ohio forensic architectColumbus Ohio construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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 Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    Park Avenue Is About to Get Something It Hasn’t Seen in 40 Years

    Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

    The Drought Is Sinking California

    Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Uncover More Pool Deck Deviations

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

    Meet BWB&O’s 2025 Best Lawyers in America!

    Construction Up in United States

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Nondelegable Duties

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

    Fluor Agrees to $14.5M Fixed-Price Project Cost Pact with SEC

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale
    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

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    November 13, 2023 —
    The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. 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

    Biden Unveils $2.3 Trillion American Jobs Plan

    May 10, 2021 —
    This past week, President Biden unveiled his American Jobs Plan, a $2.3 trillion dollar plan to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure over 8 years. As we wrote about this past month, the American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued its 2021 Infrastructure Report Card which gave the country’s infrastructure a cumulative grade point average across several areas including roads, public transportations and schools of a disappointing C-. According to a White House fact sheet on the American Jobs Plan, while the United States is the wealthiest county in the world it currently ranks 13th when it comes to the overall quality of its infrastructure. Infrastructure spending at the federal level has historically been paid for through the gas tax. Currently, that tax is 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel. The last time the federal gas tax was increased, however, was nearly 30 years ago in 1993. The reason for this long hiatus? Voter backlash and backlash by big businesses whose fleets still primarily rely on fossil fuels and diminishing returns as the number of electrical and hybrid vehicles increasingly hit the streets. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

    May 18, 2020 —
    Applicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)). Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)). Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com

    From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

    November 27, 2023 —
    On Tuesday, Aug. 8, a wildfire on the Hawaiian island of Maui ravaged the town of Lahaina, killing nearly 100 people and stranding thousands of survivors, many of whom remain displaced today. The loss of life makes this the deadliest American wildfire on record, while the material cost in property damage has been estimated at upwards of $5 billion. The response to the disaster has involved firefighters and other emergency personnel—and also engineering and construction professionals. One of them is Tam Kim, director of operations for West Maui Construction Inc., a civil contractor on the island. Originally from Oregon, Kim fell in love with Hawaii when he visited on a surfing vacation; eventually he took his technology background and helped found a startup company on Maui in 2008. Eight years later, the startup relocated to Oahu, but Kim stayed on Maui to forge a different path, one that would lead him somewhere he never imagined. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium

    March 29, 2021 —
    A federal judge in Texas has declared the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) eviction moratorium unconstitutional, holding that Article I’s power to regulate interstate commerce and enact laws necessary and proper for such regulation does not include the power to suspend residential evictions on a nationwide basis. While the court stopped short of issuing immediate injunctive relief, instead relying on the CDC to “respect the declaratory judgment” and withdraw the Order, the court stated that such relief would be available if the government does not comply with the decision. With this ruling, the most significant prohibition on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent is likely to be lifted, and many residential evictions halted or delayed under the Order may begin in earnest. While additional tenant protections remain in certain locales, this federal ruling increases the likely rate and pace of residential eviction activity across the country. The CDC Eviction Moratorium was a nationwide order enacted under the Trump Administration in an effort to reduce the adverse economic impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on residential tenants, and as a public health measure to prevent displacement of individuals into living situations conducive to the spread of the COVID-19. The Order allowed tenants facing eviction due to financial strains caused by the pandemic to certify in writing to their landlord that they are unable to pay full rent and that eviction would likely lead to homelessness or force the individual into unsafe congregate or shared living quarters. The CDC issued the order under its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act. Initially in effect through December 31, 2020, the Order was subsequently extended through March 31, 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Telematics and Usage Based Insurance Products

    October 29, 2014 —
    The New York State Department of Financial Services (the "DFS") issued Insurance Circular Letter No. 4 on May 27, 2014 (the “Circular Letter”). The purpose of the Circular Letter was to alert stakeholders of the DFS’ interest in obtaining information about products that use embedded telematic devices, including usage-based insurance products (“UBI”) that provide benefits to insurers and policyholders. As data capture and transmission technology become more advanced, and as user interfaces become increasingly sophisticated, many insurers are considering UBI and other programs that rely upon telematic devices to monitor the behavioral patterns, tendencies and habits of insureds. For example, when these devices are installed in an insured's vehicle, a telematic device can gather driving data, including miles driven, the time of day the driver used the vehicle, and his/her speed, acceleration and braking patterns. This data can be captured and transmitted on a real-time basis that allows insurers to make more effective underwriting determinations and to better align pricing with an insured’s driving tendencies and the resulting attendant risks. Other insurers have applied UBI to homeowner’s insurance where, for example, smoke and other alarms and monitoring devices can monitor and transmit details regarding the resident's risk-based activities (for example, whether and how often and how long the insured uses ovens and stoves on an attended and unattended basis). This data can be used to facilitate an insurer’s ability to correlate insurance coverage decisions with the insured’s actual behavior (as opposed to self-reported behavior) as measured by sophisticated home-based telematic devices. In addition, UBI and other programs provide the data on a real-time basis, as opposed to collecting information via traditional means, principally based upon post-claim reporting. Tempering increased UBI usage are countervailing privacy and data protection concerns and risks. Regulators, insurers and consumers have significant stakes in the availability, access and applications of this information. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

    Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line

    May 03, 2021 —
    Outfitting a commercial real estate space with smart technology can be a significant cost. While the long-term benefits and strategic improvements we’ve discussed previously can make that investment worthwhile, the evaluation period is critical to ensure an impactful ROI. Property developers, owners, and managers should undertake a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the technology procurement aligns with the project’s overall financial plan. And this is not just about getting the cost right. If the technology does not meet the needs of the space, then all the smart technology in the world will not prevent the project from being a sunk cost. Do the Research so You Know … The Technology. While the RFP is a key step of the procurement process, a more informal research phase should be undertaken first. Smart technology is a rapidly evolving field, and before reaching out to vendors, the business should ensure that it understands what is available—both in terms of the kinds of technology that can be implemented, and the various companies that offer solutions. Gathering this information early will yield results that align more closely with a particular building’s needs. Reprinted courtesy of James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and Rachel Newell, Pillsbury Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    December 09, 2011 —

    The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has ruled that condominium association boards have a duty to “properly pursue any claims,” overturning the decision of a lower court that said that it had no legal duty to file suit. Tom Schild, writing at Marylandcondominiumlaw.net, writes about Greenstein v. Avalon Courts Six Condominium, Inc.

    In this case, the condominium board waited six years after residents complained about water intrusion problems before suing the developer. The court ruled that the suit could not be filed, as the statute of limitations was only three years. After residents were assessed for the repairs, homeowners sued the board, arguing that their delay lead to the need for the special assessment.

    After overturning the decision, the Court of Special Appeals has asked the trial court to review the negligence claim.

    Read the full story…

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