BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Columbus Ohio condominiums building expert Columbus Ohio townhome construction building expert Columbus Ohio office building building expert Columbus Ohio concrete tilt-up building expert Columbus Ohio mid-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio custom homes building expert Columbus Ohio Medical building building expert Columbus Ohio high-rise construction building expert Columbus Ohio landscaping construction building expert Columbus Ohio housing building expert Columbus Ohio institutional building building expert Columbus Ohio casino resort building expert Columbus Ohio retail construction building expert Columbus Ohio parking structure building expert Columbus Ohio hospital construction building expert Columbus Ohio industrial building building expert Columbus Ohio custom home building expert Columbus Ohio structural steel construction building expert Columbus Ohio condominium building expert Columbus Ohio tract home building expert Columbus Ohio production housing building expert Columbus Ohio
    Columbus Ohio construction claims expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction scheduling expert witnessColumbus Ohio structural concrete expertColumbus Ohio architecture expert witnessColumbus Ohio construction claims expert witnessColumbus Ohio hospital construction 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


    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Insurer's In-House Counsel's Involvement in Coverage Decision Opens Door to Discovery

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    Contractor Sues License Board

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Airbnb Declares End to Party!

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

    Pine Island Bridge in Place as Florida Pushes Barrier Island Access in Ian's Wake

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    Judge Gives Cintra Bid Protest of $9B Md. P3 Project Award New Life

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak
    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

    Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

    August 14, 2023 —
    While agreeing with the insured there was a duty to defend, the court determined the defense of an environmental claims was limited to $100,000. Casa Nido Partnership v. JAE Kwon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97701 (N.D. Calif. June 5, 2023). In 1976, Casa Nido purchased the property and remains the current owner to this day. Catherine O'Hanks owned and operated a dry-cleaning facility at the property from 1960 to 1992. In August 2016, Casa Nido learned of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) subsurface contamination. Casa Nido stipulated that it did not know, nor had any reason to know, before 2016, of the existence of the subsurface contamination. Casa Nido alleged that due to equipment malfunction or improper usage, there were sudden and accidental spills and equipment overflows of PCE during the 32-year period that defendant O'Hanks operated the dry-cleaning business on the property. Casa Nido spent hundreds of thousands of dollars remediating the environmental damage. 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

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    April 03, 2019 —
    In Youell v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 497 (2018), the Court of Appeals of Indiana considered whether a landlord’s carrier could bring a subrogation claim against a commercial tenant for fire-related damages when the lease, which did not reference subrogation, explicitly required the landlord to maintain fire insurance coverage for the leased premises. The court held that subrogation was barred because the provision requiring the landlord to maintain fire insurance established an agreement to provide both parties with the benefits of insurance. The Youell case establishes that, in Indiana, if the lease explicitly states that the landlord will maintain fire casualty insurance for the building, the lease evidences an agreement by the parties to shift the risk of loss to the insurer. This agreement bars a landlord’s insurance carrier from subrogating against a commercial tenant in the event of a casualty. In 2013, the building owner, Greg Dotson, began leasing a commercial building to Robert Youell for his tire business, Best One Giant Tire, Inc. (collectively, Youell). The lease agreement required that the landlord maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the building and the leased premises. The lease also required the tenant to purchase fire and extended coverage insurance for its personal property. The lease did not mention subrogation. Dotson obtained a property insurance policy through Cincinnati Insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    February 18, 2020 —
    Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:
    In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.
    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

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    March 01, 2017 —
    I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    February 23, 2017 —
    A key component of Australia’s biggest public transport infrastructure project—Sydney’s $6.3-billion Metro North West—is the subject of a critical and detailed technical report describing how an elevated viaduct span failed at a stitch joint between two precast segments during construction last September. Project officials say the affected span, which did not suffer a progressive collapse, has since been removed and its replacement fast-tracked to avoid further delays. Little additional detail was provided. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Webb, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    June 25, 2019 —
    We’ve seen an uptick in out-of-state companies working on construction projects in New Mexico. The following is an overview of some of the nuances of New Mexico construction law about which companies may want to be aware. Construction Contract Issues Limitation of Liability Clauses are usually Enforceable, but Anti-Indemnity Clauses Are Not New Mexico courts have enforced limitation of liability clauses included in construction contracts. See Fort Knox Self Storage, Inc. v. W. Techs., Inc., 140 N.M. 233, 237 (N.M. Ct. App 2006). New Mexico law recognizes the difference between contracts that insulate a party from any and all liability and those that simply limit liability. Fort Knox Self Storage, Inc., 140 N.M. 233 at 237. An exculpatory clause immunizes a party from liability, whereas a limitation of liability clause merely curtails liability. Id. A limitation of liability clause has been held not to violate New Mexico public policy because the party “still bears substantial responsibility for its actions.” Id.; see also Cowan v. D'Angelico, 2010 WL 11493789, *6 (D. N.M. Apr. 26, 2010). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Walker F. Crowson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Crowson may be contacted at wcrowson@swlaw.com

    The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

    June 10, 2024 —
    We’re excited to share that the Bloomberg Green series Water Grab was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist. The series, which includes contributions from several CityLab writers and alums, explores how private investors are commandeering public water for profit at the expense of both the environment and less powerful communities. Below is a sample of stories looking at how investors, private equity firms and Wall Street are taking advantage of the world’s scarce water supply. Read the full series here, which is now in front of the paywall. Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence

    March 20, 2023 —
    In University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims. In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com