Caldwell County Kentucky Construction Expert Witness Directory

Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

July 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:

Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”

Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Dotted Line: How Construction Is Dealing with Cybersecurity in the Age of AI

October 12, 2026 — Richard R. Volack - Peckar & Abramson, PC
Richard R. Volack, Partner in P&A’s New York office and Chair of the firm’s Cyber Security & Data Privacy practice, was recently quoted in “Dotted Line: How Construction Is Dealing with Cybersecurity in the Age of AI,” an article written by Construction Dive. The article examines how contractors’ increasing reliance on interconnected technologies and AI can make cyberattacks more sophisticated. It discusses the heightened risks for government contractors and smaller subcontractors, including the potential exposure of sensitive project information, personal data, and financial records. It also explores practical measures contractors can take to mitigate these risks, such as strengthening contractual protections, conducting penetration testing, obtaining appropriate cyber insurance, implementing multifactor authentication, and providing employees with regular cybersecurity training. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard R. Volack, Peckar & Abramson, PC
Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com

Unable To Afford an Appellate Bond? You May Be “Indigent” And Qualify for a Discretionary Waiver or Reduction of the Bond Amount.

October 26, 2026 — Suzanne M. Nicholson - Wilke Fleury
One of the most frequent questions asked when a client is considering taking an appeal from an adverse judgment or order is whether that judgment or order is stayed pending appeal. The answer, not surprisingly, is “it depends.” While the general rule is that perfecting an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court, including enforcement of the judgment or order, there are many, many, exceptions to that rule. One such exception is a judgment or order for “money or the payment of money.” (CCP § 917.1) In such cases, a bond or undertaking is typically required to stay enforcement. The costs of such security can be significant. If you are using an admitted surety insurer, the amount of security required is 1 1/2 times the amount of the judgment. Obtaining a bond through an admitted surety will require that you have sufficient collateral to secure the bond, and sufficient funds to pay the associated premiums, which generally run between 1% and 3% of the total bond amount, per year. So, if you are appealing from a $1 million judgment, you will likely need $1.5 million in assets as collateral, and up to $30,000 per year for the premium. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Suzanne M. Nicholson, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Nicholson may be contacted at snicholson@wilkefleury.com

2026 Top Business Risks for Construction and Engineering Companies

May 26, 2026 — Darren Tasker - Construction Executive
The 2026 Allianz Risk Barometer revealed some surprising findings for construction and engineering businesses. Now in its fifteenth year, this annual business risk ranking by corporate insurer Allianz Commercial incorporates the views of 3,338 global risk management professionals on the main perils on their radar for the year. Survey respondents included construction and engineering risk experts who identified the threats keeping them up at night. Here is how they ranked the top industry risks for 2026: Natural Catastrophes Natural catastrophe risk retains the top spot, with 38% of construction and engineering respondents citing this risk as their leading concern for 2026. From the insurance perspective, economic and insured losses remained high, albeit lower than the 10-year average. The evolving nature of natural catastrophes continues to pose significant challenges to businesses and the (re)insurance industry. Insured losses from natural catastrophes are set to reach $107 billion for 2025, according to Swiss Re—the sixth year in a row they have exceeded $100 billion, while economic losses are well in excess of $200 billion. Reprinted courtesy of Darren Tasker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Fight for Your Right: Effects of FAR Final Rule on Construction

October 12, 2026 — Michael Altman - Construction Executive
Since the Federal Acquisition Regulation final rule Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects took effect, contractors seeking to compete for federal projects of $35 million or more must “negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations.” While this requirement significantly reduces competition for covered procurements, contractors may seek to restore competition on individual solicitations by filing a bid protest with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Bid protests through the COFC become possible once a federal agency posts a solicitation that includes contract provisions mandating a PLA. (In some cases, a presolicitation notice that a PLA mandate will be applied may be sufficient.) Reprinted courtesy of Michael Altman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Altman may be contacted at altman@abc.org

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...

FERC Issues Show-Cause Orders: Impacts on California and Other Regional Power Markets

July 13, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
At an open meeting on June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six FERC-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs—PJM Interconnection, ISO New England, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Southwest Power Pool, New York Independent System Operator and California Independent System Operator—along with their transmission owners (TOs), directing each region and the TOs to justify or revise tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive transmission service from the grid. These show-cause orders will impact several power markets across the country, including California. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder

July 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable. By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

CALDWELL COUNTY KENTUCKY CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES