HARRISON COUNTY INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Is Pleased to Announce Our Recognition in the 2027 Edition of Best Law Firms®

November 09, 2026 — Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight is pleased to announce our recognition in the 2027 edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers. ACS received a Tier 1 ranking in Seattle for both Construction Law and Construction Litigation; and a Tier 2 national ranking in the same areas. Best Law Firms® rankings are assessed through analyzing feedback provided by clients and professional references, information supplied by the firm, industry leader interviews, and lawyer evaluations collected through the Best Lawyers research process. For the 2027 edition, more than 110,000 client references were submitted as part of the Best Law Firms research process. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

---

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders

August 24, 2026 — Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & Wilmer
After filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1 Background McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer, Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

We’re Burning Tokens to Clean Up Bad PDFs

August 24, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Last Thursday, researchers from Tampere and Aalto universities reported on preliminary results of two AI- and digitalization-related projects. One project demonstrated how AI can automate the Bill of Materials process; the other tried to quantify the impact of data-driven construction and AI. The conclusion was that AI-powered automation can dramatically increase productivity, but unevenly. However, the substantial benefits may come from better outcomes rather than project efficiency. Various standards, company-specific practices, project-specific schemas, and traditions are designed for humans to comprehend. 2D drawings and text documents as PDF files, Excel sheets, and design and planning software have the information, but not the data in ideal form for automation. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

July 20, 2026 — Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury is pleased to announce that 18 of the firm’s attorneys have been selected for inclusion on the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. The annual Super Lawyers and Rising Stars selections recognize attorneys across a wide range of practice areas. This year’s honorees reflect the depth of Wilke Fleury’s litigation, business, healthcare, employment, bankruptcy, appellate, real estate, construction, and estate planning practices. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

---

What Prevents Innovation in Construction from Taking Off

September 15, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In construction, we have the knowledge, technology, and innovative people to radically improve our performance, yet we’re still stuck in old ways. Why is that? I attended an annual gathering for real estate and construction professionals at Rakennustieto Oy, Finland’s leading building information provider. The day before, a half-day seminar was held at the same venue. During both events, we discussed the need for change in the construction sector. Everyone agreed that we need to radically improve how we produce and share information. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business

---

Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law

June 29, 2026 — Brenda Radmacher - The Construction Seyt
Daily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties. The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@seyfarth.com

---

Key Ways Construction Companies Can Stay in Compliance with E-Verify

October 26, 2026 — Stephen E. Irving - ConsensusDocs
The federal E-Verify program has become an increasingly central feature of employment verification in the construction industry. Once a voluntary tool used primarily by federal contractors, E-Verify is now mandated, either broadly or for specific project types, by a growing number of states, and its role continues to expand under federal enforcement policy. For construction companies, which depend heavily on large, mobile workforces, and layered subcontracting relationships, E-Verify compliance presents unique operational and legal challenges. This article identifies the key practices construction companies should adopt to maintain compliance, highlights common good-faith mistakes that nonetheless expose contractors to enforcement risk, and examines the broader implications of continued E-Verify expansion for the construction labor market. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.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

---