BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Summit County Ohio retail construction expert witness Summit County Ohio tract home expert witness Summit County Ohio hospital construction expert witness Summit County Ohio office building expert witness Summit County Ohio mid-rise construction expert witness Summit County Ohio multi family housing expert witness Summit County Ohio custom home expert witness Summit County Ohio structural steel construction expert witness Summit County Ohio production housing expert witness Summit County Ohio parking structure expert witness Summit County Ohio institutional building expert witness Summit County Ohio housing expert witness Summit County Ohio concrete tilt-up expert witness Summit County Ohio low-income housing expert witness Summit County Ohio Subterranean parking expert witness Summit County Ohio condominiums expert witness Summit County Ohio townhome construction expert witness Summit County Ohio Medical building expert witness Summit County Ohio casino resort expert witness Summit County Ohio high-rise construction expert witness Summit County Ohio landscaping construction expert witness Summit County Ohio
    Summit County Ohio engineering expert witnessSummit County Ohio architectural engineering expert witnessSummit County Ohio architectural expert witnessSummit County Ohio expert witness structural engineerSummit County Ohio concrete expert witnessSummit County Ohio engineering consultantSummit County Ohio architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Summit County, 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.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Summit County Ohio

    Licensing is done at the local level. Licenses required for plumbing, electrical, HVAC, heating, and hydronics trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Northwestern Ohio
    Local # 3661
    26761 Behrens Rd
    Defiance, OH 43512
    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North Coast Building Industry Association
    Local # 3636
    5201 Waterford Dr
    Elyria, OH 44035

    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Cleveland
    Local # 3624
    6140 W Creek Rd
    Independence, OH 44131

    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Medina County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3655
    4081 N Jefferson St
    Medina, OH 44256

    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Seneca County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3671
    PO Box 712
    Tiffin, OH 44883
    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Mahoning Valley
    Local # 3689
    5121 Mahoning Ave
    Youngstown, OH 44515

    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Portage & Summit Counties
    Local # 3603
    799 White Pond Drive
    Akron, OH 44320

    Summit County Ohio Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Summit County Ohio


    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    HHMR: A Retrospective — Chapter One (2001–2025)

    Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

    Defective Panels Threatening Profit at China Solar Farms: Energy

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Bally's Secures Funding for $1.7B Chicago Casino and Hotel Project

    Hudson Tunnel Plan Shows Sign of Life as U.S. Speeds Review

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

    Four Months From Helene, Emergency Repairs Continue in North Carolina

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    You Should’ve Known: Colorado Holds Defendant May Have Pre-Litigation Duty to Preserve Evidence

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Ruling Dealing with Constructive Changes, Constructive Suspension, and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    To Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical Considerations

    Defending OSHA and a Call to Action Against Funding Cuts

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship
    Corporate Profile

    SUMMIT COUNTY OHIO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Summit County, Ohio Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Summit County, Ohio

    Lawmakers Vote to Reauthorize Programs to Support Water Quality, Coastal Protection

    April 20, 2026 —
    The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a package of 14 bills that includes measures to reauthorize several U.S. Environmental Protection Agency programs to protect and restore critical water ecosystems, expand access to broadband, reduce regulatory requirements on airport projects and programs and lower costs of federal buildings. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

    $356 Million Judgement Against Developer for Defective Construction of DC Condominium

    August 16, 2026 —
    On July 31, 2026, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered a $356,085,513.00 judgment against developers JBG Smith for defective construction and renovation of the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium in Washington, D.C. The case is Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association v. JBG Smith Properties, et al., No. 2020 CA 004807 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). In a 148-page Trial Order, the D.C. Superior Court awarded $118,695,171.00 in damages in favor of the condominium association and against the condominium developers, including JBG Smith. The Court trebled those damages pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to reach an ultimate judgment of $356,085,513.00. See Cowie Law Group: DC Condominium Construction Defects: Recovering Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Expenses & Treble Damages Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Cowie Law Group, P.C. filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Association in 2020. The firm represented the Association throughout years of pretrial discovery and ultimately served as trial counsel with Williams & Connolly LLP during a lengthy bench trial before the Honorable Yvonne Williams. The Cowie Law Group team included attorneys, George A. Bealefeld, III, Albert G. McCarraher, Stanford L. Kimmel, III and Nicholas D. Cowie. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

    Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision

    April 20, 2026 —
    A recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted). The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id. In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Builders Risk/Construction All Risks and Delay in Start-Up Coverage for Large Energy Projects: Protecting Revenue Before Operations Begin

    September 21, 2026 —
    The Most Significant Loss May Be the Delay, Not the Damage Power and energy projects are uniquely vulnerable to losses during construction. Whether the project involves a utility-scale solar facility, battery storage installation, a wind farm, transmission project, LNG terminal, or conventional generation facility, loss events in this sector often have consequences far more impactful than the actual cost of repairing damaged property. Any number of construction losses can delay commercial operation of the facility by months, triggering lost revenues, financing impacts, contractual penalties, and investor concerns. In many cases, those delay-related losses significantly exceed the underlying repair costs. Construction All Risk (“CAR”) insurance and Delay in Start-Up (“DSU”) coverage are designed to respond to these exposures. However, recovering delay-related losses is far more complicated than many insureds anticipate, particularly when projects involve international stakeholders, global supply chains, and London market insurance placements. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Bennett, SDV Fenchurch
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at will.bennett@sdvfenchurch.us

    Understanding the EPA’s Latest Proposed Drinking Water Contaminant Monitoring Rule, Published in Law360

    September 01, 2026 —
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) represents another step in the federal government’s ongoing effort to identify and evaluate emerging contaminants in drinking water. The proposal would require certain public water systems to monitor and report on 30 unregulated drinking water contaminants from 2028 through 2030, while generating occurrence data that could inform future regulation and affect environmental, commercial, litigation and risk assessments. In an article published by Law360, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, analyzes the scope and practical implications of UCMR 6, including the contaminants selected, the proposed monitoring requirements for public water systems, and the EPA’s continued focus on PFAS and related organofluorine compounds. The article also touches upon the potential significance of publicly available monitoring data for businesses and property stakeholders. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Properly Taking Judicial Notice of Florida’s Building Code

    October 12, 2026 —
    Many construction defects cases involve Florida’s Building Code. A recent non-construction case, BSREP II PBG Resort, LLC v Ginsburg, 2026 WL 265226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), discussed a court taking judicial notice of a provision in the Florida Building Code. This case was a premise liability case where the plaintiff tripped in an asphalt parking lot. The plaintiff, without complying with proper procedural notice protocol, asked the court to take judicial notice of a section of Florida’s Building Code, i.e., admitting this section as relevant evidence in the case. The trial court granted the request for judicial notice and the plaintiff used this as the basis of her cross-examination, the jury instructions, and closing argument that the violation of this section of Florida’s Building Code was evidence of negligence. This was in error. First, Florida’s Building Code is NOT a statute but an administrative rule. Ginsburg, supra. As an administrative rule, a court “may” but is not obligated to take judicial notice of the rule – it is a permissive judicial notice request per Florida Statute s. 90.203 and 90.202(9). This is important because the trial court viewed Florida’s Building Code as a statute it mandatorily had to take judicial notice of per Florida Statute s. 90.201, which was in error. Because it was permissive, the plaintiff needed to comply with statutory procedural notice protocols, which the plaintiff failed to do. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Five Partners 'Lawyers of the Year'

    September 08, 2026 —
    Best Lawyers has selected 207 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 45 offices for its 33rd edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized five Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: Akron Partner John R. Conley (Product Liability Litigation - Defendants); Akron Managing Partner David Kern (Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law; Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law; Tax Law; Trusts and Estates); Weirton Managing Partner Michelle L. Gorman (Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants); Portland Partner Megan Cook (Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants); and San Diego Partner Craig T. Mann (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can also see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Navigating Timelines and Technology: Patent Strategies for Space and Earth

    June 01, 2026 —
    More than half a century after the Apollo 11 landing fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s bold vision, the global race back to the Moon is no longer theoretical. With renewed attention on NASA’s Artemis program and a surge of commercial investment in space infrastructure, lunar exploration is again shaping technology priorities here on Earth. Reprinted courtesy of Kate Nuehring Su, Engineering News-Record and Vanessa Wang, Engineering News-Record Read the full story...
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com