TULARE CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pulling the Plug, Preserving the Product: Protecting Rights to a Modular Subcontractor’s Work Post-Termination

June 08, 2026 — Paul Williamson - ConsensusDocs
Volumetric Modular Construction (VMC) is a building method where a structure is divided into large components or modules, fabricated in an offsite factory and then transported to a construction site for assembly.[1] Proponents of VMC hail it as a cost-efficient alternative to traditional building methods that leads to more consistent quality and shorter construction duration.[2] Due to a growing labor shortage, high demand for compressed project schedules, and stagnant construction productivity rates, the construction industry is embracing VMC.[3] A recent report on the market size of prefabricated construction estimates that from 2026 to 2031, VMC will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.16% and become a 413.11-billion-dollar industry.[4] As VMC becomes more prevalent, owners, general contractors, and subcontractors must consider how to effectively contract for modular construction. One important consideration, which this article focuses on, is navigating termination of a modular subcontractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Williamson, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Williamson may be contacted at pwilliamson@pecklaw.com

---

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

September 01, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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

---

Managing Tariff Volatility in Cross‑Border U.S. Construction Projects: Practical Contract‑Drafting and Procurement Strategies

March 10, 2026 — Sara Beiro Farabow & Michael Wagner - The Construction Seyt
Volatile U.S. tariff announcements continue to affect international supply chains for U.S. construction projects. Although recent litigation has centered on the scope of presidential tariff authority rather than construction‑specific disputes, these decisions carry important implications for how parties structure risk in their contracts. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down certain “Liberation Day” tariffs as exceeding presidential authority under IEEPA. A federal district court in Washington, D.C. likewise issued a preliminary injunction suspending related tariffs—though it later stayed its own order pending appeal. And the Supreme Court has agreed to review cases addressing the legal limits of IEEPA‑based tariffs. While none of these developments arises from construction disputes, the themes they highlight—timing, statutory authority, and documentation—mirror the issues encountered when tariff conditions disrupt international procurement. The following strategies reflect practical steps U.S. project owners, contractors, and foreign suppliers can take to mitigate risk, drawing on drafting approaches now widely used across major construction forms, including—but not limited to—modified AIA agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Sara Beiro Farabow, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Michael Wagner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Ms. Farabow may be contacted at sfarabow@seyfarth.com Mr. Wagner may be contacted at mewagner@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

No Ink, No Problem: When Employees and Agents Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements

August 11, 2026 — Jordan Heath & Jacob Morrison - ConsensusDocs
Arbitration is a fundamental component of modern construction contracting. Many in the industry recognize the potential benefits and protections arbitration can provide to the business in the event of a dispute. But an important question many contracts do not address is: who does the arbitration agreement cover? Does it include the business entity only, or the individuals acting on behalf of the entity? As courts have long recognized, entities can generally only act through their employees, representatives, or agents.[1] This article discusses the circumstances in which an agent may rely on an arbitration provision entered by its employer. This is known as the agency doctrine. Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Heath, Associate, Jones Walker LLP and Jacob Morrison, Law Student University of Georgia, Jones Walker LLP Read the full story...
Mr. Heath may be contacted at jheath@joneswalker.com

---

Endra Rethinks MEP Design with AI

July 06, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Niklas Lindgren, co-founder and CEO of Endra, joins the AEC Business Podcast to discuss why his Stockholm-based startup is rebuilding MEP design from the ground up with AI. Endra recently raised $50 million in Series A funding and counts some of the world’s largest engineering consultancies as customers. Niklas explains why Revit’s underlying data model is too coarse to support deep automation, and why Endra built its own granular 3D data model instead of working as a plugin. He describes Endra’s “spatial AI” approach to routing conduit and ductwork without clashes, and how the platform models entire electrical systems, from receptacle to transformer, inside a single source of truth. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Supreme Court Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet

March 31, 2026 — Christopher Barnett - Construction Executive
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump did what many expected: It held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. What few anticipated was the speed of what followed: Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposed a 10% global surcharge effective February 24, and signaled forthcoming Section 301 investigations against most major trading partners. For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Barnett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---