Thurman Iowa Construction Expert Witness Directory

Settlement Agreements and Contracts Require a Meeting of the Minds

July 20, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A settlement agreement does not need to be executed for it to be enforceable as long as there was a MEETING OF THE MINDS. The same rings true for any contract regardless of whether the contract is signed – THERE NEEDS TO BE A MEETING OF THE MINDS. In a recent case dealing with the settlement agreement on a construction lien, the essential settlement terms (money and mutual release) were memorialized in an e-mail exchange between the parties (owner and subcontractor). The settlement required the owner to pay the principal amount plus some attorney’s fees and then a mutual general release would be prepared. In response to the confirmatory email, the owner sent a check, which the subcontractor deposited, but the owner refused to sign the release signed and sent by the subcontractor. The owner further claimed it doesn’t need to pay the attorney’s fees because the lien amount was paid in full. The subcontractor sued arguing the owner breached the terms of the settlement. The appellate court agreed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

July 13, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & Wilmer
On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

June 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Most, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees. But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Function Over Form: Eighth Circuit Narrows Application of Cosmetic Damage Exclusion

October 12, 2026 — Ali Jamwal - SDV Fenchurch
Introduction In a significant decision for policyholders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of an exclusion for cosmetic roof damage caused by wind or hail.[1] The court held that for a cosmetic damage exclusion to apply, an insurer must prove that the roof’s ability to function as a barrier to the elements is not impaired as compared to its functionality prior to the loss or damage. Background In April 2022, a hailstorm struck the insured school buildings causing indentations in the buildings’ metal roofs. The hail did not puncture the roofs’ metal, and no leaks were reported. The insurer denied the claim based on the policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion, which precluded coverage for “cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind and/or hail.” Cosmetic damage was defined as “superficial damage that altered the appearance of the roof surfacing, but such damage does not prevent the roof from continuing to function as a barrier to entrance of the elements to the same extent as it did before.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ali Jamwal, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Jamwal may be contacted at ali.jamwal@sdvfenchurch.us

Oracle's $16B Michigan Data Center Secures Financing as Power Contracts Face Appeals

June 08, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A $16 billion hyperscale data center under construction outside Ann Arbor, Mich., has secured financing backed by Blackstone and other institutional investors, even as the project's power supply agreements now face a legal challenge before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

August 25, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Editor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims. At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable. The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Meaningful Change to Contractors License Law Disgorgement Rule of Business and Professions Code Section 7031

November 02, 2026 — Garret Mandel - Porter Law Group
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 has historically imposed a severe and unforgiving penalty on any licensed contractor or subcontractor (“licensee”) performing any construction work after its contractor’s license becomes suspended or is revoked. The penalty for many years has been a prohibition against the licensee bringing an action to collect payment owed and a draconian penalty allowing the party who paid the licensee to recover, or cause the licensee to “disgorge,” any payment the licensee received for the entire contract. This strict penalty could apply to funds received for the entire contract even when the license was suspended or revoked for only a short period of time during the project. This meant, for example, that a licensee who was paid $10 million under a contract for a project that took a year to build could have to disgorge the entire $10 million it received under that contract as a result of performing work while its license was suspended for only a week of the entire project duration. Draconian indeed. A limited statutory substantial-compliance exemption could provide relief, but it requires a court determination that the statutory conditions have been met. Beginning on January 1, 2027, the licensee will be thrown a lifeline on this issue. Under California Senate Bill 342, becoming effective on January 1, 2027, California contractors on qualifying projects will no longer face the same severe penalties – but there are limitations. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Mandel, Porter Law Group
Mr. Mandel may be contacted at gmandel@porterlaw.com

Insurer Cannot Dispose of Water Leak or Bad Faith Claims on Motion for Summary Judgment

July 20, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer’s motion for summary judgment seeking to eliminate the insured’s claims for damage from a water leak, bad faith and punitive damages failed. Nargizyan v, State Farm General Ins. Co., 2026 Cal App. LEXIS 302 (Cal. Ct. App. April 15, 2026). The insured noticed tiles on his kitchen floor were warmer than usual. He found water dripping from the top of the crawl space under the house. He noticed water was “dripping in different places” but not pouring like a faucet. “There were too many places to count where water was dripping and there was water all over the place.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

THURMAN IOWA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES