MARSHALL INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Engineering Seals Versus Contracts ‘Under Seal’ (Two Very Different Things)

May 05, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently, I was asked by a reader to explain the difference between a document that is ‘sealed’ by an engineer (or architect) and one that is signed ‘under seal’. This question prompted this post, as others may also be wondering about the distinction. [Hi Ed! Thanks for your question] Professionals have ‘seals’ that show that they are registered (Engineers) or licensed (Architects). As most of you likely know, your professional seal is something that is hard won and which is used when—and only when—your plans were made by you or someone under your direct supervisory control. Your signature represents that you were in responsible control over the documents, and that they have met the required professional standard of care. (21 NC Admin Code 2-0206 (a)(11)). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Michael C. Zisa and Phillip Boldt Co-Author D.C. Chapter of “50-State Guide to Electronic Execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity”

October 06, 2026 — Michael C. Zisa & Phillip Boldt - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Michael C. Zisa, Co-Managing Partner of P&A’s Washington, D.C. office, Chair of the Surety and Construction Related Insurance Defense practice, and Co-Chair of the Crisis Management team, and Phillip Boldt, an Associate in P&A’s Washington, D.C. office, have co-authored the District of Columbia chapter of the American Bar Association (ABA) Fidelity and Surety Law Committee and The Surety & Fidelity Association of America’s (SFAA), “50-State Guide to Electronic Execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Superfund Act: What It Means for the “Polluter Pays” Movement

September 28, 2026 — Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
A federal judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that the “polluter pays” climate law is preempted by federal law and “simply beyond the limits of state law.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize New York’s compensation scheme, which calculates liability based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining. It separately held that any cost-recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted under the constitutional foreign affairs doctrine, which limits state intrusion into matters committed predominantly to the federal government. The court directed the parties to file a status report by September 14, leaving the form of further relief unresolved. In practical terms, the court has decided that the Act is preempted and cannot be enforced but has not yet determined the precise terms of its final order, including whether to formally enjoin its enforcement. The decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026), issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who was appointed by President Obama, marks the first judicial invalidation of a state climate superfund statute and carries significant implications for the climate superfund landscape and the three remaining lawsuits challenging these laws. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Water Leak Damage

August 11, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the insured’s claim due to late notice. Global Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120183 (S. D. Fla. June 1, 2026). Global suffered water damage on September 3, 2021, which originated in the bathroom of one of its rental properties. Global reported the claim to its insurer, Scottsdale, on October 19, 2021. Prior to reporting the claim, Global hired a handyman to inspect the property and then demolished the damaged area and repaired the bathroom. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Court Rules Insurer AIG Can't Claw Back $50M Storm Payout From Turner

October 20, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
A Delaware court judge ruled earlier this month that insurer AIG cannot claw back $50 million from Turner Construction for two insurance claim payouts it has made to New York University's Langone Medical Center. The dispute relates to the 2012 flooding of the university's Manhattan hospital center during Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

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

---

Endorsement is Void Where Compliance is Impossible

September 21, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit found that the insured’s loss of property due to fire was covered despite noncompliance with an endorsement requiring encompassing the property. 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mut Group, Inc., et al., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19156 (6th Cir. June 29, 2026). The insured, 3371 Reading, owned a building undergoing renovation. After the structure burned down, 3371 Reading made a claim under its policy with Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Ohio Casualty relied on an endorsement requiring fencing round the jobsite. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

May 14, 2026 — Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocs
Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...

---