WOLFE COUNTY KENTUCKY CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New Executive Order Prohibits Federal Contractors from Engaging in DEI Through Employment and Procurement Activities

April 27, 2026 — Laura De Santos & Monica Prieto - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
On March 26, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14398, entitled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, requiring federal agencies to add contractual language in all federal contracts prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from engaging in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, as defined by the Executive Order (EO). While this EO includes language similar to prior DEI-related orders, it introduces a significant expansion in enforcement by subjecting non-compliant contractors to liability under the False Claims Act (FCA), including exposure to whistleblower actions and qui tam litigation. A qui tam claim is a civil action by a private individual on behalf of the government alleging fraud against federal programs and seeking to recover damages. The new EO states that involvement in any racially discriminatory DEI activities is not only unethical and illegal, but also deemed fraudulent against federal programs because it is material to the government’s payment decisions. The definition of DEI activities here matters, as this EO expands a contractor’s obligations beyond the management of its employment policies and includes prohibitions against funding or expending time or resources on DEI activities and contracting with subcontractors, vendors, or suppliers utilizing DEI programs. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura De Santos, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. De Santos may be contacted at ldesantos@grsm.com

---

SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI

March 03, 2026 — Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery. Facts Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers

May 05, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the tenth straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2026. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. Your confidence in my work is very gratifying. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2026. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

On Checks and Balances

March 03, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s called “checks and balances” for a reason. And, generally, it works well so long as there are clear boundaries between the “co-equal” branches of government. In Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 108 Cal.App.5th 243 (2025), the 3rd District Court of Appeals upheld a set of regulations issued by the California Apprenticeship Council that contradicted an earlier 2015 ruling of the Court of Appeals. The Associated General Contractors of California Case At issue in the case was California’s Prevailing Wage Law which requires public works contractors to hire a certain ratio of apprentices. The purpose of the apprenticeship requirements is to maintain the pipeline of skilled tradespeople on taxpayer-funded projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

August 11, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.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

---

Court Rules Cook County Misspent $243M in Transportation Funds

March 10, 2026 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
A Cook County Illinois Circuit Court judge has ruled that the county violated the state constitution by using $243 million in transportation tax revenue during fiscal 2023 for non-transportation purposes, handing a legal win to a statewide coalition of construction trade groups. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com

---