JEFFERSON COUNTY MISSISSIPPI CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

ACEC Supports BUILD America 250 Act as Important First Step on Surface Reauthorization

May 26, 2026 — The American Council of Engineering Companies
WASHINGTON -- The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the business voice of America’s engineering and design services industry released the following statement on the BUILD America 250 Act: "Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen have taken an important bipartisan step toward reauthorizing the federal surface transportation programs that are critical to economic growth in every state. The BUILD America 250 Act provides five years of stability in funding road and transit projects, raises new revenues to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and includes meaningful provisions to strengthen project delivery, advance digital infrastructure, and improve the contracting framework that engineering firms rely on every day. ACEC will continue to advocate for investment levels that keep pace with the country's growing infrastructure needs, and we urge the Committee to keep this process moving forward." The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of America’s engineering industry, representing more than 5,500 independent engineering firms and more than 650,000 professionals throughout the United States engaged in the development of America’s transportation, water, and energy infrastructure, along with environmental, industrial, and other public and private facilities. Founded in 1906 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., ACEC is a national federation of 51 state and regional organizations.

---

'Drywall Isn't Light': Peter Lupo on Safety Management at Standard Drywall

May 26, 2026 — Elaine Silver - Engineering News-Record
Peter Lupo has been safety director since 2019 at San Diego-based Standard Drywall Inc., a major wall and ceiling contractor. He draws on over two decades of safety experience across a wide range of commercial construction work, having previously served as safety director for general contractor T.B. Penick & Sons. He has also previously operated Peter Lupo Consulting, where he reviewed legal cases and provided expert testimony, and blogged on safety for ENR.com. Lupo recently spoke to ENR Correspondent Elaine Silver about the weight of drywall, heat hazard control, bilingual crews and how he supports safety creativity and learning on the Standard Drywall staff. The conversation has been edited. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---

Suit Limitation Provision Eliminates Wind Loss Claim

July 27, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted after the insured failed to file suit against the insurer within the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision. Interstate Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98108 (S.D. N. Y. May 4, 2026). On or before June 27, 2023, a wind, hail and rainstorm damaged Interstate’s property in Oklahoma. Interstate filed a claim under its policy with Mt. Hawley. The policy provided that New York law applied and contained a two- year suit limitation provision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test

March 31, 2026 — Catherine Maronski - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards. The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Maronski, Robinson Cole
Ms. Maronski may be contacted at cmaronski@rc.com

---

New York Moves to Tighten Third-Party Practice: Key Changes to CPLR 1007

March 31, 2026 — Sophia L. Cahill - Sheppard
Effective April 18, 2026, the New York Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act, amending CPLR 1007—the statute that governs third-party practice. The amendment sharply limits when and how defendants can commence third-party actions, curbing the expansive discretion they previously enjoyed and targeting the late-stage impleaders that often upend case schedules. What Changes Before the AVOID Act was signed into law on December 19, 2025 (and subsequently modified by Chapter Amendments A9502 and S8809, signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026[1]), CPLR 1007 gave defendants broad latitude to implead “any person who is or may be liable” for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. CPLR 1007 specified no outside time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim; courts assessed only whether a defendant’s delay was undue—such as impleading months after the note of issue—and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the third-party action were not severed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sophia L. Cahill, Sheppard
Ms. Cahill may be contacted at scahill@sheppard.com

---

Alert: Fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment Defense Applies to Payment Bond Claims

April 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under Florida’s Lien Law, there’s an affirmative defense or affirmative claim known as a “fraudulent lien.” The fraudulent lien defense or claim is set out in Florida Statute s. 713.31. This defense also extends to payment bond claims, whether under a private statutory payment bond (Florida Statute s. 713.23) or a public payment bond (Florida Statute s. 255.05), as it pertains to the notice of nonpayment. A notice of nonpayment needs to be served within 90 days from final furnishing to preserve a claimant’s rights against the bond. However, there really has not been a case, until now, that discusses a “fraudulent notice of nonpayment.” In K&M Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brown Electrical Solutions, LLC, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D672a (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), a prime contractor and surety prevailed at the trial level on their fraudulent notice of nonpayment defense based on a supplier’s notice of nonpayment and action against a public payment bond (under Florida Statute s. 255.05). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

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

---