BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio delay claim expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction project management expert witnessesColumbus Ohio building envelope expert witnessColumbus Ohio expert witness windowsColumbus Ohio multi family design expert witnessColumbus Ohio structural engineering expert witnessesColumbus Ohio civil engineer 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


    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

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

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    A Networked World of Buildings

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    CCPA Class Action Lawsuits Are Coming. Are You Ready?

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    Texas Walks the Line on When the Duty to Preserve Evidence at a Fire Scene Arises

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    Thank You for Seven Years of Election to Super Lawyers

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

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

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences
    Corporate Profile

    COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Columbus, Ohio Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Columbus, Ohio

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    July 01, 2019 —
    On April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings. Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.” The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
    “I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
    Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    December 02, 2019 —
    The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    October 25, 2013 —
    Pieter M. O’Leary, writing for the site AVVO offers the advice that whether a construction defect is patent or latent could influence whether or not it’s covered in a construction defect claim. He notes that a “patent defect” is “a construction defect that is ‘readily observable or evident,’” while a “latent defect” is “a construction defect that is present but not readily detectable even with reasonable care.” While this may sound like a simple distinction, he notes that “distinguishing between the two can often be difficult and sometimes highly contested by the various parties in a lawsuit.” The first question is “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.” The question arises because “if a defect is hidden and not detectable (latent defect), a longer time period exists for the claimant to file a claim.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    February 18, 2020 —
    Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner. In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977. Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers

    February 11, 2019 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that nine of its Newport Beach attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are selected to receive this honor. Attorneys named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list include: Michael Cucchissi Jeff Dennis Greg Dillion Joseph Ferrentino Charles Krolikowski John O'Hara Jane Samson Michael Studenka Paul Tetzloff Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    May 07, 2015 —
    U.S. house prices rose more than economists estimated in February as the strongest labor market in seven years gives Americans the confidence to bid on property. Prices climbed 0.7 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from January, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in a report Wednesday. The average economist estimate was for a 0.5 percent increase, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Housing demand is climbing as consumer confidence hovers close to an eight-year high. Sales of existing homes rose in March by the most in four years, the National Association of Realtors reported today. The number of U.S. households jumped by almost 2 million in 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen M. Howley, Bloomberg
    Ms. Howley may be contacted at kmhowley@bloomberg.net

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    April 19, 2022 —
    Subrogation professionals have always been looking for ways to defeat onerous waiver of subrogation provisions in contracts signed by insureds. However, even when contracts are unsigned, if there is intent when the contract is made – usually long before a loss occurs – a waiver of subrogation can doom what otherwise may have been a strong case. The Superior Court of Delaware considered such a scenario to determine whether a waiver of subrogation provision applied to a multimillion-dollar subrogation case. In State of Delaware Insurance Coverage Office and Factory Mutual Insurance Co., both as subrogee of the University of Delaware v. DiSabatino Construction Co., Schlosser & Associates Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and V.E. Guerrazzi, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-08-080, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2022), the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying contract. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue the defendants in their suit to recover damages as a result of a fire. The court specifically denied the plaintiffs’ argument that since the contract was not signed and another “short form” version was later used the waiver of subrogation provision should not apply. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    September 25, 2018 —
    What are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? This is an important question, right? It is probably the most important part of your case. If you didn’t have damages, you wouldn’t be in a dispute. So, I repeat, what are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? The below case explains dealing with a contractor that elected to walk off the job mid-construction. In Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D20194a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), owners hired a contractor to perform a residential renovation job for $276,000. The owners were to pay the contractor in five draw payments (common for residential jobs) where the third draw payment was due upon the contractor’s completion of the dry-in (as defined in the contract). After the contractor received the first two draw payments totaling $138,000 plus an additional $6,000 for updated architectural plans, the contractor claimed the job doubled in price and demanded that the owners pay the contractor the third draw payment immediately (before it was due) plus an additional $31,450. The contractor refused to continue unless the owners agreed to its terms, and then walked off the job when the owners would not agree to these terms (nor should the owners agree to those terms). At the time the contractor walked off the job, the owners’ home was not habitable due to the construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com