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


    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

    Corps Releases Final Report on $29B Texas Gulf Coast Hurricane Defense Plan

    New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits

    Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Despite Construction Gains, Cement Maker Sees Loss

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    U.S. Judge Says Wal-Mart Must Face Mexican-Bribe Claims

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    How Palm Beach Balances Mansion Politics Against Climate Change

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    Arizona Is the No. 1 Merit Shop Construction State, According to ABC’s 2020 Scorecard

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    Waive Your Claim Goodbye: Louisiana Court Holds That AIA Subrogation Waiver Did Not Violate Anti-Indemnification Statute and Applied to Subcontractors

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

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

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design
    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

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars

    August 26, 2024 —
    Going outside the norm of our blogs, which usually discuss construction related issues, Ahlers, Cressman, & Sleight is pleased to announce that nine members of our firm have been selected to the 2024 Washington Super Lawyers list. Each year, a rigorous process that involves a nomination by peers and a third-party verification of honors, awards, verdicts, settlements, and other criteria relating to their work as an attorney, aims to select no more than five percent of the lawyers in Washington state from no more than seventy practice areas for this distinction. As mentioned, the first step in the process is to be evaluated on their work as an attorney, next candidates are evaluated by their peers and given ratings based on the information known about their work. Finally, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories and final selections are made. The grouping process is done so that candidates are compared fairly to their peers by firm size, eliminating the potential unfairness that comes with comparing large and small firm outcomes and attorney practices. The Rising Star list involves an even narrower criteria than the Super Lawyers list. The initial process is the same, however, candidates for the Rising Stars list must be under the age of forty or have less than ten years of experience. For this category less the two and a half percent of lawyers in Washington are selected, making this quite a feat for those who have accomplished the honor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    November 18, 2011 —

    The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

    Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

    Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

    After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

    Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

    Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    February 16, 2017 —
    The insured's attempt to secure additional coverage beyond a $10,000 payment for water damage after a rain storm damaged the interior of its building failed. Bible World Christian Ctr. v. Colony Insurance Co, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175766 (M.D La. Dec. 20, 2016). The interior of Bible World's building was damaged by water that leaked in from the roof after a heavy rain storm. Bible World's officials met with Robert Chandler, an employee of Omni Insurance Group, the day after the rain event. Chandler had assisted Bible World in procuring its commercial property policy with Colony Insurance Company. Chandler told Bible World to fix the property and that its costs would be covered under the policy. Bible World spent $79,876.81 in repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

    December 10, 2024 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to announce the firm has been recognized for its fifth consecutive year in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® and is ranked by Best Lawyers® regionally in three practice areas. To read the publication, please click here. Metropolitan Tier 1 Las Vegas: Litigation – Construction Orange County: Litigation – Construction Metropolitan Tier 2 Orange County: Family Law San Diego: Litigation – Real Estate Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    October 21, 2015 —
    The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is proposing the largest fine to date against a drone operator as the agency cracks down on the booming use of unmanned aircraft in congested skies over populated areas. The FAA said Tuesday it was recommending a $1.9 million penalty against SkyPan International Inc., which made 65 drone flights from 2012 to 2014 in airspace above cities including New York. The company uses drones to photograph the prospective views from Manhattan high rises under construction, according to its website. The action comes as the FAA has struggled to enforce existing rules on drones and attempts to finalize the first regulations allowing small unmanned vehicles to operate commercially. Drone sightings by pilots, including close-calls with airliners, have surged from only a handful a month last year to over 100 per month. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alan Levin, Bloomberg

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    August 20, 2018 —
    Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on June 27 that wrapped the court’s current case calendar addressed labor relations and water rights issues with construction sector impact. Its 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector employees can’t be forced to pay “fair-share fees” to unions could affect industry professionals represented by labor groups in 22 states. Reprinted courtesy of ENR journalists Jeff Yoders, Pam Radtke Russell, JT Long and Debra K. Rubin Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Ms. Debra may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    May 13, 2014 —
    Freddie Mac, which along with Fannie Mae has forced home lenders to buy back tens of billions of dollars of flawed mortgages, said the companies are loosening rules that made banks more cautious about extending credit. The government-backed companies will expand the pool of loans that become exempt from putback requests, Freddie Mac (FMCC) said in a memo to lenders today. Under the new rules, loans will typically be spared from such demands if borrowers make 34 of their first 36 scheduled monthly payments. Previously, borrowers needed to avoid delinquency for the first three years. Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    January 10, 2018 —
    Arizona’s Constitution gives electors in cities, towns, and counties the ability to refer legislation that was enacted by their local elected officials to the ballot for popular vote. Ariz. Const. art. IV, Pt. 1 § 1(8). But only legislative acts are referable; administrative acts are not. In general, a legislative act makes new law and creates policy, is permanent in nature, and is generally applied. On the other hand, an administrative act is one that executes and implements a law already in place. Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485, 489-90, 821 P.2d 146, 150-51 (1991). For more than fifty years, Arizona courts have been clear: zoning and rezoning ordinances are legislative acts and therefore referable to popular vote. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 17, 363 P.2d 607, 609 (1961) (holding that “what constitutes an appropriate zone is primarily for the legislature”); Fritz v. City of Kingman, 191 Ariz 432, 432, 957 P.2d 337, 337 (1998) (noting “we reaffirm our view that zoning decisions are legislative matters subject to referendum”); Pioneer Trust Co. of Arizona v. Pima Cty., 168 Ariz. 61, 64–65, 811 P.2d 22, 25–26 (1991) (holding “that, in Arizona, zoning decisions are legislative acts subject to referendum” and that even a “conditional approval of . . . rezoning was a legislative act”); Cottonwood Dev. v. Foothills Area Coal. of Tucson, Inc., 134 Ariz. 46, 653 P.2d 694 (1982) (analyzing whether zoning referendum complied with statutory requirements); Wait v. City of Scottsdale, 127 Ariz. 107, 108, 618 P.2d 601, 602 (1980) (noting “that the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances constitute legislative action”); City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 65, 537 P.2d 934, 935 (1975) (“The matter of zoning is appropriately one for the legislative branch of government.”); Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 108 Ariz. 449, 452, 501 P.2d 391, 394 (1972) (denying an attempt to enjoin referendum on county’s zoning decision). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam E. Lang, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.com