Hope Arkansas Construction Expert Witness Directory

Meet BWB&O’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars in Colorado!

April 08, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is thrilled to share that Partner Devin Brunson and Associate Melissa Youngpeter have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 Colorado Rising Stars list. This recognition reflects their exceptional work in Personal Injury and Civil Litigation.

SUPER LAWYERS RISING STARS

Devin Brunson: 2024-2026

Melissa Youngpeter: 2026

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Limitations of Liability Provisions in Construction Contracts: A Means to Manage Risk and Limit Financial Exposure

June 23, 2026 — Ellen Chapelle, Richard Reizen, Hannah Batsche - Construction Executive
Taking a cue from architects and engineers, construction contractors have started inserting limitation of liability clauses in their construction contracts to manage risk and limit financial exposure. This article will address the specific risks that can be limited through an LOL, tips for negotiating the LOL terms with reluctant owners to cover those specific risks, how to limit unintended consequences of an LOL (such as relieving an insurer of its obligations to cover certain losses), and approaches to setting the amount of the liability cap in the LOL. Addressing Particular Risks An LOL can address a wide range of risks, including:

Damages for delay
Liability for non-conforming or defective work
Liability for third-party bodily injury or property damage
Liability excluded by a general liability policy (e.g., pollution and cyber liability)
Liability related to intellectual property

Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later

April 14, 2026 — Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLP
Turnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation. The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims. Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt. These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association. The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences: Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects. Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable. Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign. Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement. These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance. Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims. Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.

New York Moves to Tighten Third-Party Practice: Key Changes to CPLR 1007

March 31, 2026 — Sophia L. Cahill - Sheppard
Effective April 18, 2026, the New York Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act, amending CPLR 1007—the statute that governs third-party practice. The amendment sharply limits when and how defendants can commence third-party actions, curbing the expansive discretion they previously enjoyed and targeting the late-stage impleaders that often upend case schedules. What Changes Before the AVOID Act was signed into law on December 19, 2025 (and subsequently modified by Chapter Amendments A9502 and S8809, signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026[1]), CPLR 1007 gave defendants broad latitude to implead “any person who is or may be liable” for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. CPLR 1007 specified no outside time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim; courts assessed only whether a defendant’s delay was undue—such as impleading months after the note of issue—and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the third-party action were not severed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sophia L. Cahill, Sheppard
Ms. Cahill may be contacted at scahill@sheppard.com

Appraisal Award Upheld Despite Insurer’s Contention that Causation was Considered

February 23, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court in Tennessee granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding the appraisal award was properly determined despite the insurer’s argument that the appraisal panel considered causation of the loss. Nashville Communications, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223455 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025) A windstorm struck and damaged the building owned and insured by Nashville Communications (NashComm). A claim was submitted to the insurer, Auto-Owners, for damage to the roof and interior water leakage. Auto-Owners acknowledged that there was some amount of wind damage to the building from the wind event. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers

May 05, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the tenth straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2026. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. Your confidence in my work is very gratifying. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2026. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

May 14, 2026 — Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning Berman
A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

HOPE ARKANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES