BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio roofing construction expertColumbus Ohio expert witness concrete failureColumbus Ohio construction expert testimonyColumbus Ohio window expert witnessColumbus Ohio civil engineering expert witnessColumbus Ohio architectural expert witnessColumbus Ohio architectural engineering 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


    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LISA D. LOVE

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

    EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Lauren Motola-Davis Honored By Providence Business News as a 2021 Leader & Achiever

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

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

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Commencing of the Statute of Repose for Construction Defects

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance
    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

    Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

    September 21, 2020 —
    In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
    1. Procure or obtain;
    2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
    3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
    Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default

    August 21, 2023 —
    Most bond forms in use today, including the standard form AIA A312-2010, contain express condition precedents that trigger a surety’s obligations under the bond. Under a performance bond, the bond obligee is required to provide formal notice to the surety that the principal has materially defaulted and that the surety must begin to perform under the terms of the bond. This principle is grounded in the idea that the surety should have an opportunity to address the default and investigate the claim so as to mitigate its own liability. Failure to provide sufficient notice will discharge the surety of its obligations under the bond. Reprinted courtesy of Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole LLP and Tasnuva Islam, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com Ms. Islam may be contacted at tislam@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    October 02, 2015 —
    “[I]t ain’t how hard you hit; it’s about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. . . .” – Sylvester Stalone as Rocky Balboa in Rocky Balboa. Ding, ding. The Little Case That Roared Two years ago we wrote about a case that caused an uproar in the homebuilding industry – Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (2013) – in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held for the first time that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims involving “actual,” as opposed to “economic,” damages in new residential housing. It was a blow to the homebuilding industry who back in 2002, following a wave of construction defect lawsuits involving new residential housing, lobbied the State Legislature for the Right to Repair Act which gave homebuilders an opportunity to repair defects before being sued in court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    January 21, 2015 —
    Continuing with our theme of Ready for 2015, this blog serves as a reminder of your rights and obligations under Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-1201-1211. As you may recall, Nebraska’s legislature amended the Prompt Pay Act in 2014. The most significant changes are highlighted below. Attorney’s Fees May be Recovered. The most significant change in the Prompt Pay Act allows contractors to recover damages if they pursue a claim under the Act. And, this is not reciprocal in that the defendant may not recover fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    July 18, 2011 —

    Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:

    1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter? 2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552? 3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?

    The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.

    The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”

    The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    April 15, 2015 —
    Regulators and government agencies are sharpening their focus on the issues surrounding cyber risk. The number of pronouncements are too numerous to recite in a single client alert but the overarching message is clear – be prepared or be subject to attack. Attacks not only will come from hackers, customers, consumers and, ultimately the plaintiffs’ bar, but the regulators themselves. Vulnerability lies not only with cyber attacked companies but increasingly with the companies’ officers and directors who fail to adequately safeguard data. On March 26, 2015, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it would be expanding its information technology examination procedures to focus on cyber risk. This effort was a follow-up to its February 8, 2015 announcement of new cyber assessments (See "Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance," March 24, 2015). Not to be outdone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed a comprehensive and mandatory filing for property casualty insurers that would give regulators a full range of information and data on cyber risk exposures issued by carriers in the insurance market. This proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s proposal, just two months ago, to create the Cyber Threat Intelligent Integration Center (CTIIC), a new federal agency designed to fight cyber attacks, provide collaboration and encourage information sharing between the Federal government and private industry. 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

    Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

    September 09, 2024 —
    A common question from clients, when a dispute arises on a construction project, is whether they can recover their attorney’s fees from the other side if they pursue a case and win. More often than not, such fees are not recoverable. As a general rule (commonly known as the “American Rule”), each party to a dispute must bear their own attorney’s fees unless there is some statutory provision or contractual agreement between the parties allowing otherwise. Since most construction disputes involve claims for breach of contract and/or negligence, no realistic statutory provision often allows for attorney’s fees. Many construction contracts do not typically provide a prevailing party the right to collect attorney’s fees from the other side. However, even if the American Rule applies, there may be another path to recovering attorney’s fees if the parties agree to arbitrate their dispute under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules. Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

    July 25, 2022 —
    The Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) – Public Contract Code section 3500 et seq. – requires state agencies to consider the carbon content of the following products when awarding contracts:
    • Structural steel;
    • Concrete reinforcing steel;
    • Flat glass; and
    • Mineral wool board insulation.
    It is anticipated that additional products may be added through future legislation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com