Drytown California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

May 12, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site. This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it. The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Structural Engineer Claims Reinforcement Was Never Installed on Troubled NYC Tower

September 01, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
New York City has expanded its investigation into the structural failure at the former Pfizer headquarters tower in Midtown Manhattan as the Dept. of Investigation confirmed a parallel inquiry and the Dept. of Buildings directed the property owner to retain third-party engineering oversight. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.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

Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

May 14, 2026 — Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis Brisbois
Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

Steel Cooling: Steel Costs Steadily Decline After Pandemic Price Shock

May 12, 2026 — Construction Executive
Steel prices have continued trending downward after several years of volatility, according to Gordian’s latest analysis based on RSMeans Data. After dramatic spikes during the pandemic-era supply disruptions, the market has gradually stabilized as supply chains improve and demand softens in some construction segments. However, selective volatility and tariff uncertainty continue to influence pricing across the sector. Key findings from the report include:

Steel prices declining: The national average price of structural steel fell to about $2,343.93 per ton in January 2026, down 5.38% from the previous quarter and 7.18% year over year.
Longer-term price correction: Steel costs have been trending downward since 2024 after earlier volatility driven by inflation, supply shortages and global demand swings.

Same Insurers, Different Results: Another Chapter in Acuity v. Kinsale and the Limits of Co-Carrier Recovery Under Colorado Law

October 27, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
When multiple insurers potentially owe coverage for the same construction defect claim, can one insurer force another to participate in the defense or indemnification of their common insured? If the other insurer refuses, what remedies are available? As is often the case in insurance coverage litigation, the answer depends on precisely what claim is being asserted, whose rights are being enforced, and when the claim is brought. In our earlier article, Acuity v. Kinsale Insurance Company: Co-Carrier Obligations and Subrogation under Colorado Law, we examined the United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s decision in Acuity v. Kinsale Insurance Company, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (D. Colo. 2024). That decision addressed the circumstances under which an insurer that funded a construction defect settlement could pursue another insurer for equitable contribution, contractual subrogation, and alleged bad-faith conduct. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim Denied

November 02, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but granted the motion to dismiss the claim for declaratory judgment. Jimenez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182079 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2026). The insured owned a two-family property which was insured by State Farm. After a fire damaged the property, the insured submitted a claim to State Farm. The policy provided for Fair Rental Value coverage “[w]hen a loss insured causes that part of the residence premises rented to others or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable.” Before the fire, the insured alleged that he rented part of the property under an oral lease agreement. In support of his claim for Fair Rental Value, the insured alleged that he provided State Farm with bank deposit receipts demonstrating that he collected rent in cash. The insured further alleged that his rental ledger was destroyed in the fire. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners

July 27, 2026 — Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & Wilmer
On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024. Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

DRYTOWN CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES