BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio construction expert witnessesColumbus Ohio engineering consultantColumbus Ohio construction cost estimating expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction project management expert witnessesColumbus Ohio expert witness commercial buildingsColumbus Ohio expert witness windowsColumbus Ohio OSHA expert witness construction
    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 Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center

    Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    Hirers Must Affirmatively Exercise Retained Control to be Liable Under Hooker Exception to Privette Doctrine

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    The Administrative Procedure Act and the Evolution of Environmental Law

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon

    Surviving the Construction Law Backlog: Nontraditional Approaches to Resolution

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter Announces New President/CEO

    Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Plan Ahead for the Inevitable Murphy’s Law Related Accident

    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

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

    Chicago Aldermen Tell Casino Bidders: This Is a Union Town

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued
    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

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    January 04, 2021 —
    As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. 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

    Alexus Williams Receives Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award

    November 29, 2021 —
    St. Louis, Mo. (October 19, 2021) - St. Louis Associate Alexus Williams has received the Missouri Lawyers Media 2021 Women’s Justice Pro Bono Award, which honors women attorneys who have contributed significant effort and time to pro bono work. In connection with this honor, Ms. Williams was interviewed by Missouri Lawyers Media for its 2021 Women’s Justice Awards (WJA) supplement. In the article featuring Ms. Williams, the publication explained that she has “developed a reputation for helping others” and “has continually found ways to level disparities to make the system work for everyone.” For example, as a member of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Executive Committee’s Young Lawyers Division, Ms. Williams co-chaired a committee on racial equity during the civil unrest of 2020. Ms. Williams told Missouri Lawyers Media, “When I was looking at grad programs, law school was one that seemed like it kind of aligned with what I was passionate about, which was helping people, counseling people, being able to be of assistance in different kinds of situations.” She further noted, “Everyone has to play their part but also everyone needs the opportunity to play their part.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexus Williams, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Williams may be contacted at Alexus.Williams@lewisbrisbois.com

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    October 21, 2024 —
    The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how well written contracts and timely legal action can make all the difference in resolving disputes between municipalities, general contractors, and subcontractors. The ruling favored Aqua Engineering; a subcontractor that played a role in a wastewater treatment facility project gone wrong. The court’s decision highlighted key legal principles, including the economic loss rule and the importance of well-structured contracts in construction disputes. Whether you are a subcontractor looking to avoid undue liability or a general contractor seeking to ensure subcontractors shoulder their fair portion of responsibility, this case offers valuable lessons for all parties involved in construction projects. The Background: A Wastewater Project with Issues In 2008, the Town of Mancos, Colorado, hired Souder, Miller & Associates (“SMA”) to design a new wastewater treatment facility. SMA subcontracted Aqua Engineering to help implement a specific wastewater treatment system known as the Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (“MSABP”). However, after construction, the facility never worked as expected. For years, the Town faced ongoing issues, and despite Aqua’s involvement in attempts to fix the problems, the facility remained dysfunctional. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    September 29, 2021 —
    If there is one mantra that is repeated often here at Construction Law Musings, it is that your construction contract will be strictly construed and Virginia Courts will enforce the provisions as written. This rule includes forum selection clauses. For those that aren’t attorneys, this means that absent a statute to the contrary, the parties can pick the location of any litigation or arbitration by contract. However, the timing of signing that contract makes a difference as a relatively recent Eastern District of Virginia case points out. Marathon Res. Mgmt Grp v. C. Cornell, Inc. examined what happens when work is performed by one party to the contract prior to the execution of the written contract that contains the forum selection provision. In this case, the defendant C. Cornell, Inc. obtained a default judgment in Texas for non-payment by Marathon for painting and cleaning of rooms at Texas A & M University for work invoiced on August 22, 2017, and September 11, 2017. Upon receipt of the garnishment from the Texas Court, Marathon sued C. Cornell in Virginia state court and the defendant removed the case to federal court. Marathon alleged two separate breaches of contract, the first was that C. Cornell violated the forum selection clause of a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) executed on September 23, 2017. The second was a violation of another clause of the MSA that barred direct communication with any of Marathon’s customers. The second breach was alleged to be by virtue of the garnishment summons to one of Marathon’s customers. 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

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    May 10, 2017 —
    What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Kahana Feld Partner Jeff Miragliotta and Senior Associate Rachael Marvin Obtain Early Dismissal of Commercial Litigation Cases in New York and New Jersey

    August 26, 2024 —
    KF attorneys Jeff Miragliotta and Rachael Marvin recently secured early dismissal for a commercial real estate client on pre-answer motions to dismiss for two cases involving disputes over commercial properties in Union County, New Jersey and Suffolk County, New York. Plaintiff argued it was entitled to damages in excess of 50 million dollars, including punitive damages, for claims involving trade libel, defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage for reports that were prepared in connection with the use of a commercial building in Union County, New Jersey. KF attorneys successfully argued that the statute of limitations had run for each of plaintiff’s claims by utilizing a decision from the Supreme Court of New Jersey in an underlying case filed against Union County. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Marvin, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Marvin may be contacted at rmarvin@kahanafeld.com

    Buyer Beware: Insurance Agents May Have No Duty to Sell Construction Contractors an Insurance Policy Covering Likely Claims

    May 20, 2024 —
    Construction contractors in the market for insurance coverage have few legal protections if their insurance agent fails to provide insurance that covers likely claims against the contractor. As construction defect lawsuits continue to be a frequent occurrence throughout Colorado, we have seen an increase in the number and complexity of coverage endorsements and exclusions in insurance policies. Some of these exclusions result in insurance policies that are essentially useless to the contractor who purchased them. For example, we have seen dirt work contractors with earth movement exclusions or an earth movement sublimit that turns their $2 million policy into a $100,000 policy. We have seen contractors who primarily build tract homes in subdivisions with tract home exclusions. We have seen general contractors whose policies state that every subcontractor must name the contractor as an additional insured or else the general contactor’s policy converts from a seven-figure policy to a five-figure policy with eroding limits (meaning that the attorney’s fees, expert fees, and litigation costs reduce the coverage limits). The list goes on and leads to an unfortunately high number of contractors who pay significant sums for their insurance policies, finding themselves uninsured or underinsured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    April 02, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Newport Beach Partner Morgan Stiefel and Associate Brandon Cook obtained a defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their subcontractor client. This lawsuit stemmed from a claim made by Plaintiff for eye injuries arising out of claimed negligence and strict liability associated with our client’s performance of a sandblasting job at a construction site adjacent to Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges that while she was in her backyard, sand hit her in the eyes at a high velocity speed, resulting in permanent damage to her eyes. We argued our clients took all necessary safety precautions in the performance of this job, and Plaintiff’s eye irritation symptoms could not have been caused by our client. All of her alleged injuries were either pre-existing or could be explained by circumstances other than our client’s actions. Through expert testimony and our arguments, we were able to show the jury that Plaintiff lied about the sand entering her eyes at a high velocity and her symptoms being caused by our clients’ performance of the sandblasting job. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP