MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

$10.5M Settlement Ends George Washington Bridge Debris Liability Fight

September 15, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A $10.5-million settlement that recently came to light has ended a six-year legal fight over whether a truck part that may have been lying on the George Washington Bridge roadway for more than 10 minutes was there long enough for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to have found and removed it before it caused a catastrophic accident. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

May 05, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured. The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured: This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects

May 05, 2026 — Stephen Hauptman - Ball Janik LLP
Florida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher. The Cost Volatility Trap Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement. Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations. Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure. This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation. Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences. The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge. For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements. Taking a Data-Driven Approach Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning. The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework. Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.

---

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B

Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?

Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit

Construction Spending Drops in March

Newmeyer Dillion Partner Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Named One of Orange County's 500 Most Influential by Orange County Business Journal

Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

Muir named Brown and Caldwell Eastern leader

Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

Traub Lieberman Recognized in the 2025 Edition of Chambers USA

President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

Five Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2025 Southern California Super Lawyers List

Environmental Roundup – April 2019

Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting

The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

ASCE Releases New Report on Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure Investment in Disadvantaged Communities

Start Spreading the News: Appellate Division Case Highlights How Policyholders Should Plead Claims Under New York’s Consumer Protection Statute

Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities

Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

David Samani Joins BHBA Podcast on Mediation Best Practices

Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)

Beyond Complexity: Systems Engineering in Construction

Quick Note: Liability Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Duty to Indemnify

Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World

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

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?
. 86503-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2025), an unpublished decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the denial of a subcontractor’s request for prevailing-party attorney fees under an indemnity clause after the general contractor voluntarily dismissed its indemnity claims. Because the indemnity claim was no longer live and no determination of fault had occurred, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the request. ACS represented Walsh, the general contractor, in securing the denial of the fee request at the trial court that the Court of Appeals affirmed. A Pass-Through Indemnity Claim That Ended Before Fault Was Decided The dispute arose out of a public works contract under which King County hired Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (“Walsh”) to construct and install a conveyance pipeline. After the pipeline broke, King County sued Walsh for breach of contract and warranty, expressly identifying both Walsh and its subcontractor, Mears Group Inc., (“Mears”) as responsible. Walsh tendered defense and indemnity to Mears under the subcontract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

---