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


    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    What ENR.com Construction News Gained the Most Views

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Motion for Reconsideration Challenging Appraisal Determining Cause of Loss Denied

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

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

    Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    Temecula Office Secures Approval for Development of 972-Acre Community on Behalf of Pulte Homes

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

    Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    Kentucky Supreme Court Creates New “Goldilocks Zone” to Limit Opinions of Biomechanical Experts

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Milwaukee's 25-Story Ascent Stacks Up as Tall Timber Role Model

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/18/23) – Construction Inventory, 3D Printing, and Metaverse Replicas

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    Sanibel Causeway Repair: Contractors Flooded Site With Crews, Resources

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    Robots on Construction Sites Are Raising Legal Questions
    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

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    August 19, 2015 —
    The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    January 01, 2011 —

    “Challenges for Experts in Construction Defect Claims and Litigation” will be held Thursday May 13, 2011 between 1:30 and 3:00 PM at this year’s West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. Among the various topics covered will be of Right to Repair/Opportunity to Repair statutes, improper testing methodologies, new challenges where a case involves a Wrap Policy, OCIPS, CCIPS, and other owner controlled insurance programs, as well as the need for realistic testing protocols for the party the expert is retained to represent.

    During the presentation Mr. MacGregor will be working in connection with a group of construction and design experts each of which have extensive experience with construction defect and claims related litigation. This particular session is expected to attract a standing-room only crowd, drawing in excess of 1700 attendees.

    The West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar is the largest seminar of its type. This year’s event is scheduled for will take place on May 12 and 13, 2011, at The Disneyland Hotel and Resort. For more information regarding the years event please visit http://www.westcoastcasualty.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=3322

    http://www.westcoastcasualty.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=3322 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

    July 22, 2024 —
    “Nearshoring” is a hot topic throughout Latin America and is receiving increasing attention in the United States. We offer this introduction to “Nearshoring” and the opportunities it presents for your reference. “Nearshoring” has become increasingly relevant in the context of the globalized economy. This phenomenon describes relocating production and service operations to countries geographically close to consumer markets, instead of opting for more distant locations as in traditional “offshoring”, considering, as dominant criteria, production conditions and costs. Mexico, for example, given its strategic geographic closeness to the United States and its highly skilled labor force, is an attractive location for companies in a wide range of industries which are considering relocation or construction of new facilities and seeking to optimize costs, maintain efficiency and mitigate supply chain risks. Reprinted courtesy of Jerry P. Brodsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Roberto Hernandez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Brodsky may be contacted at jbrodsky@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    August 13, 2019 —
    In the past week or so mandatory arbitration has been all the rage. From those that argue that arbitration is becoming more burdensome than litigation, to my friend and fellow construction attorney Scott Wolfe who gives great advice on how to make arbitration worth it again. You can place me in the camp of those that think that mandatory arbitration clauses of the type typically found in contracts can add a layer of expense that can be unnecessary. However, if an arbitration clause is carefully drafted, and properly used, these clauses an be helpful in assuring that the streamlining effect for which arbitration was created actually occurs. Because the contract is king in Virginia, these provisions can essentially create the rule of civil procedure used to resolve any dispute relating to the project. Anything from the number and method of appointing the arbitrators, to the ability to use attorneys, to the time between notice and arbitration hearing and whether mediation is a requirement, to the documents and other pre-arbitration exchanges can and should be specifically outlined. The construction contract can also state who decides between court or arbitration. This can be one party or both. The possibilities are almost endless. 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

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    November 18, 2011 —

    On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.

    The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).

    The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

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

    The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

    October 27, 2016 —
    Most states have laws known as “prompt payment” statutes which govern the timing of payments on public works projects[i] from project owners to general contractors, and from general contractors to subcontractors.[ii] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that contractors and subcontractors who may have less leverage than the project owners and prime contractors, respectively, are paid for their work on a timely basis. Prompt Payment Act cases are rare, and, since many of the prompt payment statutes are founded on the same principles, when we come across a Prompt Payment Act case, it is “blog worthy.” This dispute arose from the construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line Project connecting downtown Los Angeles with Culver City on which FCI/Fluor/Parsons (“FFP”) was the prime contractor, and Bloise Construction, Inc. (“Bloise”) was the excavation subcontractor to FFP. Under the prime contract, Expo,[iii] the owner, was permitted to withhold ten percent of the payments owed to FFP, and FFP, pursuant to its subcontract with Bloise, was entitled to also withhold ten percent of the payments to Bloise as retention. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    June 29, 2020 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked the #5 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2020 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms. Gordon & Rees is the only California-based law firm to rank in the Top 25. The firm was ranked in the Top 10 in more specific areas as well.
    • #1 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Most Locations
    • #2 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of Construction Attorneys
    • #6 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of States Admitted to Practice
    “With offices throughout the nation and outstanding construction attorneys in many of those offices, we are able to offer our construction clients a diverse range of legal services wherever they do business,” said Ernie Isola partner and co-chair of the firm’s construction practice group. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    What Should Be in Every Construction Agreement

    November 04, 2019 —
    A detailed and coherent construction agreement in place on every job minimizes confusion, makes clear everyone’s respective responsibilities and reduces disputes. There are six things that should be addressed in every construction agreement. DEFINE THE SCOPE Define what the scope of work is that will be provided. Will it be only materials; will it be materials and labor; or will it be just labor? Be very clear and specific in how the scope of work is spelled out. Many contracts state that the contractor is responsible for all work that’s shown on the plans and specifications, as well as that which is reasonably inferable. While subjective—even if not actually on the plans or specifications, someone may believe that something should be part of the contractor’s work. This could expand what has to be done beyond what was understood or priced. LIST ALL THE EXCLUSIONS Do the parties each have the same understanding as to what is covered in the contract? How often are contractors faced with customers thinking something was included as part of the work? The contractor may have believed that task, or that material, or that specially fabricated item was excluded. But was it? Did the contractor articulate what was and was not in the scope and price? Specifically listing what is excluded can obviate this problem. Articulate what is not in the price or scope and reduce the chance of one party believing that something is to be done when it isn't. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Barthet may be contacted at pbarthet@barthet.com