Pulaski County Missouri Construction Expert Witness Directory

2026 Top Business Risks for Construction and Engineering Companies

May 26, 2026 — Darren Tasker - Construction Executive
The 2026 Allianz Risk Barometer revealed some surprising findings for construction and engineering businesses. Now in its fifteenth year, this annual business risk ranking by corporate insurer Allianz Commercial incorporates the views of 3,338 global risk management professionals on the main perils on their radar for the year. Survey respondents included construction and engineering risk experts who identified the threats keeping them up at night. Here is how they ranked the top industry risks for 2026: Natural Catastrophes Natural catastrophe risk retains the top spot, with 38% of construction and engineering respondents citing this risk as their leading concern for 2026. From the insurance perspective, economic and insured losses remained high, albeit lower than the 10-year average. The evolving nature of natural catastrophes continues to pose significant challenges to businesses and the (re)insurance industry. Insured losses from natural catastrophes are set to reach $107 billion for 2025, according to Swiss Re—the sixth year in a row they have exceeded $100 billion, while economic losses are well in excess of $200 billion. Reprinted courtesy of Darren Tasker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Voluntary Dismissal of an Indemnity Claim Does Not Make the Subcontractor a “Prevailing Party,” Washington Court of Appeals Holds

September 21, 2026 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In King County v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, No. 86503-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2025), an unpublished decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the denial of a subcontractor’s request for prevailing-party attorney fees under an indemnity clause after the general contractor voluntarily dismissed its indemnity claims. Because the indemnity claim was no longer live and no determination of fault had occurred, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the request. ACS represented Walsh, the general contractor, in securing the denial of the fee request at the trial court that the Court of Appeals affirmed. A Pass-Through Indemnity Claim That Ended Before Fault Was Decided The dispute arose out of a public works contract under which King County hired Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (“Walsh”) to construct and install a conveyance pipeline. After the pipeline broke, King County sued Walsh for breach of contract and warranty, expressly identifying both Walsh and its subcontractor, Mears Group Inc., (“Mears”) as responsible. Walsh tendered defense and indemnity to Mears under the subcontract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

How Engineers Will Determine Why NYC's Pfizer HQ Conversion Buckled

July 13, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
Construction crews have stabilized the former Pfizer headquarters redevelopment in Midtown Manhattan after two load-bearing structural columns buckled on the 21st floor July 7. The focus has now shifted from emergency response to determining what caused the office-to-residential conversion to suffer a major structural failure. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.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

What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

July 13, 2026 — Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction Seyt
Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

The Construction Defect Litigation Podcast: Navigating Multi-Party Construction Defect Litigation

September 08, 2026 — Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld Construction Defect Practice Group Chair Ivette Kincaid and attorney Thomas McCarrick recently joined the Construction Defect Litigation podcast to discuss the challenges—and strategies—behind complex construction defect matters involving multiple stakeholders. Drawing on their experience, Ivette and Thomas explore practical approaches to:

Identifying key parties and understanding how claims and crossclaims develop
Working with experts to evaluate defects, causation and damages
Managing procedural challenges, including scheduling, document management and depositions
Applying thoughtful case management strategies to position complex matters for successful resolution

Reprinted courtesy of Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

Snell & Wilmer Recognized With Top Honor in Ranking Arizona: Top Law Firms for 2026

June 22, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that the firm has been voted as the top law firm in Arizona for the 17th consecutive year in the 2026 edition of AZ Big Media’s Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business. The firm was again recognized in the category of “Top 10 large law firms in Arizona” which looked at firms with 39 attorneys or more. “We are honored to receive this award recognizing our team’s ongoing commitment to excellence in service of our clients, our community, and each other,” said Firm Chair Barbara J. Dawson. “We are proud to play a meaningful role in supporting the strength and growth of Arizona’s vibrant business environment amid a rapidly changing global economy.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

AI Data Centers Become City-Scale Infrastructure, Prompting New Industry Playbook

August 11, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
AI data centers are no longer just buildings. They are increasingly reaching power-demand levels more commonly associated with municipalities, prompting industry groups to launch a new framework they say is needed to keep pace with rapidly changing power, cooling and reliability requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

PULASKI COUNTY MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES