POINT OF ROCKS MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New California Law Requires Real Estate Agents and Brokers to Disclose AI Alterations in Listings

January 21, 2026 — Brian Slome - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego, Calif. (December 19, 2025) - Artificial intelligence and digital marketing have become ubiquitous in real estate advertising. The widespread use of AI creates risk for consumers who don’t know whether images shown online or on the multiple listing services are real. A new California law that goes into effect in January 2026 tries to draw a clear line: innovation is welcome but deception is not. The state’s new law requires licensed real estate brokers and salespersons to disclose when images used in advertisement and promotional materials have been digitally altered and to provide access to the original, unaltered images. The law is intended to enhance transparency in real estate advertising and to reduce the risk of consumer deception arising from image editing, virtual staging, or other digital modifications. Who Is Covered The law applies to real estate agents, brokers, developers, and marketing staff involved in property advertising. It encompasses advertisements including those in print and online. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Science-Based Standards for Wildfire Recovery: What California Policyholders Need to Know About A.B. 1642

March 03, 2026 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Wildfires continue to present serious risks for California property owners. Unfortunately, commercial property owners, corporate facilities, landlords, and homeowners need to overcome not only the flames themselves, but also remediating hazardous contamination against a backdrop of unpredictable and ambiguous environmental safety standards. In response to the destructive Los Angeles area fires in 2025, the California Legislature recently introduced Assembly Bill 1642 aimed at creating uniform science-based standards for evaluating, testing, and clearing wildfire-impacted properties. While A.B. 1642 is in its early stages of consideration, it could materially influence claims handling, remediation costs, risk management practices, and broader liability exposures for California policyholders. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Court Conditionally Grants Mandamus Relief to Compel Appraisal

February 02, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court conditionally granted the insurer’s writ of mandamus to compel an appraisal after the trial court denied the insurer’s motion to compel appraisal. In re Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8932 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025). The insureds, Jay Steinfeld and Barbara Winthrop (Steinfeld) ,hired Southhampton Group to build their home. Construction began in 2021. Southhampton Group obtained a builder’s risk policy from Zurich which named Steinfeld as an additional insured. Shortly before completion of the home, Sheet Metal Crafts, a subcontractor working on the home’s roof, caused a fire that substantially damaged the home. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process

April 27, 2026 — David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLP
On April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process. Background In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE. Reprinted courtesy of David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP, Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP, Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute

May 14, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute. The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim. GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Don’t Ignore Prejudgment Interest

February 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to contracts, there may be a clause that provides that untimely payments shall bear interest at a particular rate. Or it may be the statutory rate. That clause will come into play when determining prejudgment interest. In ANY dispute, prejudgment interest can be an important damages component that accrues from the date of the loss. Don’t ignore prejudgment interest. The Fourth District of Florida, in a construction dispute, maintained:

“[I]f a plaintiff establishes that he sustained out-of-pocket loss, prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date of the loss. The trial court has no discretion regarding awarding prejudgment interest and must do so applying the statutory rate of interest in effect at the time the interest accrues.”

Bensusan v. Design Engineering Group, LLC, 2025 WL 3466367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation omitted).

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

---

Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine

April 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows: Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---