Meadowlands Minnesota Construction Expert Witness Directory

Properly Taking Judicial Notice of Florida’s Building Code

October 12, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many construction defects cases involve Florida’s Building Code. A recent non-construction case, BSREP II PBG Resort, LLC v Ginsburg, 2026 WL 265226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), discussed a court taking judicial notice of a provision in the Florida Building Code. This case was a premise liability case where the plaintiff tripped in an asphalt parking lot. The plaintiff, without complying with proper procedural notice protocol, asked the court to take judicial notice of a section of Florida’s Building Code, i.e., admitting this section as relevant evidence in the case. The trial court granted the request for judicial notice and the plaintiff used this as the basis of her cross-examination, the jury instructions, and closing argument that the violation of this section of Florida’s Building Code was evidence of negligence. This was in error. First, Florida’s Building Code is NOT a statute but an administrative rule. Ginsburg, supra. As an administrative rule, a court “may” but is not obligated to take judicial notice of the rule – it is a permissive judicial notice request per Florida Statute s. 90.203 and 90.202(9). This is important because the trial court viewed Florida’s Building Code as a statute it mandatorily had to take judicial notice of per Florida Statute s. 90.201, which was in error. Because it was permissive, the plaintiff needed to comply with statutory procedural notice protocols, which the plaintiff failed to do. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Alexander Hopkins Authors Law360 Article on Wisconsin Supreme Court Coverage Decision

October 06, 2026 — Alexander G. Hopkins - SDV Fenchurch
Alexander Hopkins recently authored an Expert Analysis for Law360 examining a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision addressing coverage for water damage arising from alleged construction defects. In “Wis. Coverage Ruling Rejects Strict Ensuing Loss Test,” Alex explores the relationship between construction defect exclusions and ensuing loss provisions, and what the decision means for policyholders seeking coverage when an excluded condition contributes to subsequent damage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexander G. Hopkins, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at alexander.hopkins@sdvfenchurch.us

Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

June 23, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.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

Structural Concerns Force Emergency Closure of Maryland Office Building

August 16, 2026 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
A 10-story Baltimore-area office building was evacuated after an underground parking structure was compromised during construction work. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

AI Can Now Train the Soft Skills Construction Ignored

August 03, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Most AEC professionals learn to work in teams and across teams through trial and error. There are, however, opportunities to better prepare for the real world with formal training. Until now, it has required human facilitators. Now, generative AI is emerging as a scalable alternative, which I’m also exploring. A Gap in Curricula When I studied architecture, most of the teamwork happened with co-students in the same department. However, one course focused on industrial projects where future architects and engineers collaborated on a simulated project. I’m not sure if a similar course is still in the curriculum, but it was certainly worthwhile and should have been much more extensive. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit

May 12, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Mike D’Andrea and Associates Ruth Rasiah and Kaylah Abdullah in the Los Angeles office for obtaining a complete dismissal of their clients in a significant claim involving California’s Public Utilities regulations. After lengthy litigation, BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Claimant, Spectrum (Charter Communications), which resulted in a complete dismissal of the action against BWB&O’s clients. At issue was whether California’s Public Utilities Code shifted the common law duty to maintain certain utility equipment in residential areas within Southern California. After significant briefing, the Superior Court found that BWB&O correctly argued that the Public Utilities Code required utility companies, like Spectrum, to fully maintain utility equipment, and that private residents are not responsible for utility maintenance (even if the physical equipment is located on private property). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

MEADOWLANDS MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES