LUKE MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Los Angeles Times Ranks Lewis Brisbois Third Largest Firm in LA County, Largest for Litigation

June 08, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
The Los Angeles Times has ranked Lewis Brisbois the third largest firm in LA County by attorney headcount, and first for number of litigation attorneys. Lewis Brisbois, whose Los Angeles office is led by Co-Managing Partners Jana I. Lubert and Kathleen Walker, has 273 attorneys working in LA County, including 167 partners. The firm ranked No. 1 for Litigation in the county, with 206 attorneys under the leadership of Partner Craig Holden. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

July 20, 2026 — Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
I. Course of Construction Exclusions Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy. General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Surety Requiring Collateral Security Under General Agreement of Indemnity

September 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In order to procure bonds (payment and performance bonds), you need to sign a General Agreement of Indemnity (referred to as the “GAI”) with the surety (bonding company). It does not matter the surety issuing the bonds, the terms and conditions in the General Agreement of Indemnity are largely consistent. These terms and conditions are one-sided written in favor of the surety. This is because bonds are not insurance. When a surety issues such bonds, it is doing so under the premise that it will get reimbursed every penny that it incurs relative to its exposure- whether incurred in attorney’s fees, consulting costs, or remediating a default or claim under the applicable bond. The General Agreement of Indemnity is one of the most powerful contracts in construction and is a contract that is not to be taken lightly. It provides the surety numerous rights in the event of a claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

HHMR Attorneys Steve Heisdorffer and Dave McLain Named to 2026 Super Lawyers List

April 08, 2026 — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is pleased to announce that Steve Heisdorffer and Dave McLain have been selected to the 2026 Colorado Super Lawyers list for construction litigation. Mr. Heisdorffer has been consistently recognized in recent years for his work in construction litigation and related business disputes. Mr. McLain has been recognized by Super Lawyers each year from 2020 through 2026, following his earlier inclusion on the Rising Stars list from 2009 through 2012. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

---

Conditional Payment Bond Consideration-Make Sure There Is Pay-If-Paid Provision

June 29, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If a general contractor is going to have a conditional payment bond, it needs to ensure it subcontracts contain pay-if-paid or pay-when-paid provisions. This conditional payment language in subcontracts is the general contractor’s defense that it doesn’t have to pay a subcontractor UNTIL owner has paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. The general contractor (and the surety) can look at the conditional payment bond with the s. 713.245 legend stamped on its face designating the conditional nature of the bond, and assume the conditional structure is locked in against the bond: no payment from the owner, no obligation to the subcontractors under the bond. But what happens when the subcontracts contain no express conditional payment language despite having a valid conditional payment bond? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision

April 20, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted). The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id. In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment

June 15, 2026 — Jennifer Kretschmann & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis Brisbois
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities. The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

---