BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio expert witness concrete failureColumbus Ohio architectural expert witnessColumbus Ohio testifying construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expertsColumbus Ohio construction scheduling expert witnessColumbus Ohio architectural engineering expert witnessColumbus Ohio expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    Ex-San Francisco DPW Director Sentenced to Seven Years in Corruption Case

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    When Every Drop Matters, Cities Turn to Watertech

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

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Multifamily Building Pushes New Jersey to Best Year since 2007

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Florida Condo Collapse Victims Reach $1 Billion Settlement

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

    Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

    10-story Mass Timber 'Rocking' Frame Sails Through Seismic Shake Tests

    Is a Text a Writing?

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Arctic Roads and Runways Face the Prospect of Rapid Decline

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

    Landlord Duties of Repair and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Cities' Answer to Sprawl? Go Wild.

    Updates to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games
    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

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

    April 12, 2021 —
    As litigators we have all been there: nearing the end of a hard-fought mediation that lasted all day. Your significant other texts to ask what is for dinner; daycare closes in thirty minutes; the dog needs to be let out. The mediator, a retired judge, gently reminds you of his prior commitment—a speaking engagement at a volunteer charity dinner event that night. Though the parties started the day at opposite ends of the spectrum, after numerous counteroffers, persistent negotiation, and mediation tactics, they finally strike a deal. As the mediator prepares a document memorializing the terms of settlement, the parties wait with bloodshot eyes, and a sense of guarded accomplishment considering compromises were made, but alas, an outcome seems certain. You text your significant other to indicate that you will pick something up for dinner on your way home. Then, the mediator informs you that computer problems are preventing finalization and transmission of the document for signature. The mediator offers to send an e-mail setting forth the material settlement terms and asks each party to respond via e-mail to confirm the terms are correct, which the parties do. After a quick e-mail to your experts and case team asking them to cease trial preparation work, you leave for home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Likman may be contacted at likman@hhmrlaw.com

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    April 15, 2014 —
    The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew. CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. 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

    Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

    March 23, 2020 —
    A Texas judge has ruled that Hunton Andrews Kurth is entitled to coverage from Great Northern Insurance Co., a unit of Chubb, Ltd. (“Chubb”), for losses its predecessor firm suffered when Hurricane Harvey closed its Houston office and disrupted business in 2017. The court agreed with Hunton’s position that the policy, written specifically for a law firm, covered its business income loss until the firm’s operations were restored to their pre-loss levels. The court rejected in its entirety Chubb’s argument that coverage lasted only until the physical damage that closed the building had been repaired. Rather, siding with Hunton, the court found that the policy language affords, in addition to ordinary business income coverage during the damage period, “extended period” coverage that commences after the damaged property is repaired and after the firm’s operations resume. From August 27 to August 31, 2017, the firm was forced to close its Houston office due to flooding and damage caused by Hurricane Harvey. While employees were permitted to return to the office on August 31, income did not return to its pre-loss level until September 14, 2017. The firm submitted a claim to Chubb for the loss sustained from August 27 to September 14, but Chubb paid only for income loss suffered during the 3-day closure period, and refused to cover the loss suffered after the building reopened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    You Are on Notice: Failure to Comply With Contractual Notice Provisions Can Be Fatal to Your Claim

    September 26, 2022 —
    Imagine your firm is the construction manager on a multi-million-dollar project. At the end of the project you are five million dollars out-of-pocket. You have a stack of claims for additional and extended work which led to the overrun, payment for which will easily cover the shortfall. However, the owner refuses to compensate you until you can satisfactorily answer their inquiry: “Where are the notices that are expressly required under the terms of the contract?” You had a good relationship with the owner’s field representative who was aware you were performing the work and understood that your company was compiling claims. The once cooperative owner, now suffering financial restraints of their own, is resolute in their refusal leaving you no choice but to expend substantial sums of money to litigate the claims, the success of which is far from assured. What Contract Language Can Be A Trap For An Unwary Contractor? While courts are generally hesitant to order a forfeiture and some courts disfavor condition precedents, a judge’s hands may be tied by particular contract language requiring the strict enforcement of notice requirements. Such provisions may include: (1) an explicit clause that there be precise compliance with notice requirements; (2) express consequences for noncompliance (e.g., if the required notice is not provided the claim will be waived, forfeited or abandoned); (3) a statement that the notice requirements are a condition precedent to recovery; (4) language such as “if,” “provided that,” “or else” or “on condition that” (e.g., the owner shall review the claim, “provided such claim” was received within the applicable notice period) or (5) prohibition of any waiver of the notice requirement. To the extent the notice provision includes such language, a contractor can be without recourse even when the owner has actual knowledge of the claims or cannot show prejudice by the lack of notice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jenifer B. Minsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Minsky may be contacted at jminsky@pecklaw.com

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    December 11, 2013 —
    Sometimes, even if a developer is willing to make a repair, sometimes the repair doesn’t get to the actual problem, according to Nicholas D. Cowie of Cowie & Mott, writing on his blog. He notes that “getting it ‘right’ the first time is important and written documentation is key.” He gives the example of “when a developer agrees to informally repair a window or roof leak, the ‘repair,’ as far as the developer is concerned, may consist merely of sending out a worker with a caulk gun to seal gaps that should have been protected with a solid flashing material during the original installation.” As a better course, he says that homeowner associations should “request a written description of the proposed repair” in order that it can be evaluated. This also allows follow-up to determine if the agreed-upon repair was done properly. And, although some homeowners associations would rather not have the original subcontractor repair their own work, here warranties often come into play. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    November 08, 2013 —
    The Orvido, Florida city council wants to encourage commercial development, and they’re willing to do it by discouraging residential development. The impact fees for commercial buildings have dropped sharply, the Orlando Sentinel notes that for a 50,000 square-foot office building, the city is reducing the impact fee from $2,890 to $1,575, a drop of $1,313, nearly half. Meanwhile, the impact fee for single-family homes has seen an increase of seven percent, going from $3,195 to $3.433. The city is clear about its reasons. “We’re very heavy on the residential side. We want to have more high-paying jobs come into the city,” said Keith Britton, a member of the council. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest

    July 10, 2023 —
    On June 7, 2023, the City of Seattle announced three winners of its Office to Residential: Call for Ideas contest for which it received a total of 13 submissions. Hybrid Architecture, LLC, took first place; Gensler, Seattle Office Project Team took second; and the Miller Hull Partnership took third. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections will study the submissions and determine what legislative and regulatory modifications would be necessary to support and further these proposals and other future office-to-residential conversion projects. Seattle will also be holding a series of exhibitions over the coming weeks where project submissions will be available to the public. On June 14, 2023, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM, a reception will be hosted by the Seattle Architecture Foundation and the City at the American Institute of Architects. The gallery will also be open to the public from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on June 21, 28, and July 5. After June 14, 2023, those interested can access contest submissions at the project website. Seattle’s primary goal with this contest was to provide a vision for the future of downtown and begin charting a concrete path to getting there. Since working from home has become more common following the COVID-19 pandemic, vacancy rates in many office buildings have risen sharply, while housing availability and affordability remain ongoing issues. If Seattle can show a realistic—and profitable—path to converting commercial office spaces into residences, it would be addressing both problems, killing two birds with one stone. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com

    New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

    November 23, 2020 —
    In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of