BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio forensic architectColumbus Ohio reconstruction expert witnessColumbus Ohio consulting engineersColumbus Ohio window expert witnessColumbus Ohio concrete expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction code expert witnessColumbus Ohio building consultant expert
    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


    Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

    2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Claim Against Broker Survives Motion to Dismiss

    'Taylor Swift Is an Economic Phenomenon': CE's Q1 2024 Economic Update and Forecast

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    Fee Simple!

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Following My Own Advice

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

    New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

    Insurer Must Cover Portions of Arbitration Award

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Pennsylvania Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective
    Corporate Profile

    COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Columbus, Ohio Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Columbus' most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Columbus, Ohio

    Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses. The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.” During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage. The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance. The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty. The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.” The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    January 09, 2019 —
    The Ohio Supreme Court bucked the modern trend by finding that there was no coverage under CGL policy's the subcontractor's exception for faulty workmanship claimed against the insured. Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs. 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375 (Ohio Oct. 9, 2018). The University contracted with Charles Construction Services, Inc. to build a new luxury hotel and conference center on campus. After work was completed, the University discovered extensive water damage from hidden leaks that it believed were caused by the defective work of Charles Construction and its subcontractors. Repairs were made at the cost of $6 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    September 07, 2017 —
    The District of Columbia Condominium Act contains a statutory warranty that protects condominium associations and their unit owner members from structural defects in newly constructed and newly converted condominiums. The warranty is backed by a condominium developer’s bond, letter of credit, or other form of security from which monies can be drawn upon if the developer fails to make warranty repairs. This article discusses how the warranty against structural defect works and how to make claims against the developer’s security to fund warranty repairs. THE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in the condominium common elements and each condominium unit. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) 42-1903.16(b). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    May 31, 2021 —
    As you may know, material prices have been climbing. And they continue to climb based on the volatility of the material market. On top of that, there are lead times in getting material due to supply chain and other related concerns. The question is, how are you addressing these risks? These are risks that need to be addressed in your contract. As it relates to climbing material prices, one consideration is a material escalation provision. The objective of this provision is to address the volatility of the material market in economic climates, such as today’s climate, where the price of material continues to climb. Locking down a material price today will be different than locking down the same price months from today. This volatility and risk impacts pricing and budgets. Naturally, an owner and contractor would like to be in a position to lock down supplier prices as soon as possible—both to secure pricing and to account for items with long lead times or that recent data forecasts a long lead time due to supply chain concerns. However, this is not always possible or practical and can depend on numerous issues such as when the owner contracts with the contractor, when the owner issues the notice to proceed (and permits are issued), final construction documents and revisions to the construction documents, the type of material, whether there is staging or storage available for the materials, and the current status including climitazation of the project. 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

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Prior to the devastation caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, the AIA Consensus Construction Forecast had predicted “slower growth for the construction industry for the remainder of 2017 and through 2018.” But, given the hundreds of billions of dollars in damages caused by these horrific events, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, estimates a lift to the economy through the rebuilding of these areas. This, of course, is dependent on insurer funds and the amount of aid offered through government sources. Nonetheless, the process will be costly, timely and exhaustive. Under such circumstances, speed is a necessity. In addition to being drawn into the earliest stages of the project development cycle, the services of construction professionals have merged so intensely that even their “consultative advice” have produced exposures in “collaborative” environments rife with liability. A challenge for contractors in today’s design/build marketplace is securing professional liability insurance policies that will not only manage the risks associated with their own errors and omissions, but also the problems caused by designers and others contracted to work on the project. However, this too is not very easy. Such policies when purchased by contractors can be exceedingly cost prohibitive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Nawa, Construction Executive, a Publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved
    Mr. Nawa may be contacted at joseph.nawa@newdayunderwriting.com

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    December 17, 2015 —
    Two insurers disputed who was responsible for coverage the additional insured contractor. Endurance Am. Spec. Ins. Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19194 (2nd Cir. Nov. 4, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance, finding there was coverage for the additional insured general contractor after being sued by an employee of a subcontractor. Century's policy included an Action Over Exclusion clause, which excluded insurance coverage for injury to certain employees as follows: Exclusions: . . . e. Employer's Liability "Bodily injury" to: (1) an "employee" of the named insured arising out of and in the course of:
    • (a) Employment by the named insured; or
    • (b) Performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business.
    The named insured was Pinnacle Construction & Renovation Corp. 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

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    November 07, 2012 —
    The following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here. The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows: In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    November 18, 2011 —

    Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

    Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

    The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

    Read the full story…

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