BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio multi family housing building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio low-income housing building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio building consultant expertColumbus Ohio construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expert testimonyColumbus Ohio expert witness roofingColumbus Ohio construction scheduling expert witnessColumbus Ohio hospital construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio fenestration 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


    Construction Executives Should Be Dusting Off Employee Handbooks

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    Congratulations to BWB&O for Ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® as “Best Law Firms”!

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin

    Do You Have an Innovation Strategy?

    Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

    How Concrete Mistakes Added Cost to the Recent Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project

    Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    Motion for Reconsideration Challenging Appraisal Determining Cause of Loss Denied

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Effective Strategies for Reinforcing Safety Into Evolving Design Standards

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    Adobe Opens New Office Tower and Pledges No Companywide Layoffs in 2023

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

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    Lead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

    Five Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2021

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules
    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

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    March 19, 2014 —
    In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?

    August 19, 2024 —
    Technology has always been a driving force behind progress, and the construction industry is no exception. Over the years, technological advancements have revolutionized the way companies design, plan and build structures, leading to increased efficiency, safety and sustainability. From virtual-reality simulations to drones and 3D printing, technology has transformed every aspect of the construction process. However, the construction trades still lag behind other sectors in adoption of digital technologies. With a lack of skilled labor continuing to be an impediment to growth and profitability in the construction industry, technological developments could have significant implications for successful adopters. Already, the industry is seeing a huge difference in valuation between traditional engineering and construction firms and construction software companies. As labor shortages continue to hinder growth in the industry, consolidation is likely, as is the probability that companies with the greatest tech capabilities will be the most highly valued. There are several areas of technology that are of the greatest interest in the current marketplace. BIM Building information modeling with computer-aided design software now allows architects and engineers to create detailed and accurate 3D models of buildings and infrastructure projects, integrating data about every aspect of the building, from materials and costs to energy efficiency and maintenance schedules. These models not only help in visualizing the final product; they also enable better communication and collaboration among project stakeholders. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Silver, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    December 10, 2015 —
    Wharf Holdings Ltd., a Hong Kong-based real-estate developer, said it has agreed to sell its entire stake in Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Ltd. for HK$2.2 billion ($284 million) to an undisclosed buyer, three days after Anbang Insurance Group Co. purchased about a fifth of the Chinese builder’s shares. Wharf will sell 445 million shares, or 5.93 percent of Sino-Ocean Land’s stake, for HK$5 each, the company said in a statement on its website on Thursday. It expects to complete the transaction next week. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

    Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance

    January 10, 2022 —
    Washington, D.C. (January 4, 2022) - Two high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced that the Biden Administration is prioritizing environmental regulatory enforcement over compliance assistance. Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), and Deborah Harris of the DOJ’s Environmental Crimes Section, indicated in mid-December 2021 that companies and individuals should expect more “vigorous enforcement,” with an emphasis on criminal enforcement. This new policy is in contrast to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)'s previous emphasis on compliance and pollution mitigation instead of enforcement actions under the prior administration. DOJ’s new policy of promoting enforcement actions is consistent with the Biden Administration’s overall efforts to prioritize environmental justice. In April 2021, as explained in a previous Lewis Brisbois Client Alert, OECA released two memoranda directing enforcement teams to consider a variety of tools to resolve enforcement actions, including increased inspections, restitution, and reparation for victims of environmental crimes and overstepping state regulators where necessary. Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois, R. Morgan Salisbury, Lewis Brisbois, Sean P. Shecter, Lewis Brisbois and Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Salisbury may be contacted at Morgan.Salisbury@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Shecter may be contacted at Sean.Shecter@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    February 21, 2013 —
    The contractor for the Manatee County Judicial Center will be replacing the defective stucco on the building, but they have stated that they intend to go after the subcontractor who initially installed the defective stucco. The contractor, Balfour Beatty LLC, has said they will pay for the repairs, but Steve Holt, an executive of the firm said that “we have initiated a lawsuit against the subcontractor, who we believe was substantially or completely responsible to recover those funds.” Mr. Holt named Commercial Plastering as the subcontractor responsible. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    December 29, 2020 —
    Among the recent decisions dismissing complaints for business interruption and civil authority coverage due to closures caused by COVID-19 are Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166808 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 11, 2020) and Sandy Point Dental v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171979 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2020). The difficulty in proving "direct physical loss" was the downfall of both cases. In Pappy's, claims were made for business income losses insured as a result of local and state closure orders. The policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Plaintiffs argued that "direct physical loss of" did not require a tangible damage or alteration to property and that the loss of the ability to continue operating their businesses as a result of the government orders met this requirement. The court relied upon a prior decision, 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 2, 2020) [post here], where the court noted that under California law, losses from inability to use property did not amount to "direct physical loss" within the meaning of the policy. 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

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    June 21, 2017 —
    Loss of the insured's home caused by a renter who demolished the home was covered under the homeowner's policy. Fisher v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 Idaho LEXIS 143 (Idaho May 26, 2017). The insured, Shammie L. Fisher, entered a Purchase Agreement to sell her home to Ron Reynoso. The purchase of the property was contingent upon Reynoso obtaining financing. Before completing the purchase, he would lease the property. The Agreement stated, "Buyer intends to make certain improvements to the property upon possession, with the intent to sell the property for a profit." Within two months of renting the property to Reynoso, Fisher learned that he had demolished the entire house down to the foundation. He then ceased work and left. Fisher made a claim under her policy, but Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company denied coverage based upon the exclusion for faulty, inadequate or defective work. When Fisher sued, the trial court granted summary judgment to Garrison. 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

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    June 29, 2017 —
    On a public works construction project, a contractor incurred additional costs and asserted a claim against the city. The city denied the claim because the contract had a not-to-exceed price, and the city council and mayor did not approve contract modifications to exceed that amount. City ordinances require approval for contract modifications and change orders exceeding ten percent of the original not-to-exceed amount. But the contractor argued that the ordinance did not apply because the excess costs did not result from a contract modification or change order. In addition, the contractor argued that, in refusing to approve an increase in the not-to-exceed amount, the city breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that these questions were factual issues for the jury to decide. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com