ALPHARETTA GEORGIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

AI in AEC 2026: Doing AI Right and Rethinking Your Business Model

April 08, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The sixth AI at the AEC 2026 conference showcased the evolution of AI discussions. There were, naturally, many talks about software and technologies. But more than before, there were conversations about realizing AI’s business value. Two themes appeared in nearly every session I attended. First, many companies struggle with AI adoption, not because they lack tools, but because their thinking isn’t right. Second, when AI works, it disrupts the business model that brought them there. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Massachusetts Nuclear Verdict Leads To $90M Bad Faith Award

February 10, 2026 — Eric B. Hermanson & Timothy J. Langan - White and Williams
Insurers in Massachusetts have long struggled with the demands of MGL ch. G.L.c 176D, § 3(9)(f), which requires “prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.” Last month a Superior Court ruling illustrated the potentially draconian consequences of a violation: finding an insurer liable for more than $90 million in bad faith damages, in a case that might have settled under $3 million with proper handling. The claimant, John Rooney, was a mason who fell off a scaffold at a construction site. He sued the general contractor. The general contractor, in turn, sought coverage as an additional insured under a series of Liberty Mutual policies issued to Rooney’s employer – the masonry company – with combined aggregate limits of $19.5 million. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Timothy J. Langan, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Langan may be contacted at langant@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

Seventh Circuit Finds “Additional Insured” Requirements Met Where Non-Party Subcontractor Was Proximate Cause of Underlying Injuries

February 23, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Atlanta Gas Light Company et al v. Navigators Ins. Co., Nos. 24-2888 & 24-2889 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals assessed whether an upstream contractor was an “additional insured” under an umbrella policy issued to its subcontractor. Atlanta Gas and Southern Company Gas (“AGL”) hired United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”) to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned throughout Georgia. In 2018, USIC failed to mark a gas line in Homerville, Georgia, and a boring company struck it, leading to an explosion that severely injured three women. The victims settled their claims with USIC but did not come to terms with AGL. AGL eventually did settle with the victims, but only after they sued AGL in Georgia state court (the “Underlying Suits”). AGL’s service agreement with USIC required USIC to obtain primary and excess liability insurance coverage that included AGL as an additional insured. Because USIC’s settlement with the victims exhausted its primary policy, AGL tendered the defense and indemnification of the Underlying Suits to USIC’s excess insurer, Navigators. Navigators denied the request on the ground that AGL was not an “additional insured” under the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

UPDATED: Dominion Sues Feds Over Offshore Wind Project Halt, With Action Possible on Others Shut

February 02, 2026 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
UPDATED: Dominion Energy filed a federal lawsuit Dec. 23 in Norfolk, Va. against the U.S. Interior Dept. immediate construction pause order for its 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind energy project (CVOW) off Virginia Beach, Va., which it developing to begin operation next year. The project is one of five large East Coast offshore wind projects under construction that the federal agency paused, claiming new "national security" risks. Dominion and OSW Project LLC, the entity that includes project co-owner Stonepeak Partners, a private investor, said they seek a temporary restraining order. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

---

Can Foreclosure Sale Be Overturned Because Sale Price Is Grossly Inadequate?

January 26, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Foreclosure actions are equity actions. See Verzura Construction, Inc. v. Hotel La Petitite Muse, LLC, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2500a (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). Can a sale price at a foreclosure auction sale be set aside because the foreclosed party believes the sale price is grossly inadequate? A recent case discusses this question and, as you will see, the argument that the sale price is grossly inadequate is not enough to overturn a sale. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Four Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers List

March 03, 2026 — Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – Feb. 20, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that partners Jason Feld, Amir Kahana, Sharon Oh-Kubisch, and Manuel Ugarte were selected to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers® list. Jason Feld is a founding partner of Kahana Feld. He focuses his practice on the defense of homebuilders, contractors, developers, and real estate professionals primarily in construction defect, general liability, insurance defense, construction accident, and real estate matters. He also represents government entities handling construction, premises liability, general liability, and environmental claims. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, as well as personal counsel to several national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

---

An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract

January 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.” A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---