WEED NEW MEXICO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins

May 12, 2026 — Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLP
Three weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins. White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Reprinted courtesy of Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage

April 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025). The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Midwest Team Secures Resolution of Matter for Homeowners’ Association Client, Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees

February 10, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Kansas City/Wichita Partner Alan L. Rupe and Kansas City Associate Delaney McCoy recently achieved a victory on behalf of their client, a homeowners’ association that was sued after denying a solar panel application. The plaintiff homeowners challenged the association’s decision in court, and after extensive—and costly—litigation, the court ultimately determined that the dispute was not yet ripe for judicial review. With that threshold issue resolved, the parties were able to work collaboratively to address the solar panel matter itself. But one significant question remained: whether the association was entitled to recover its legal fees under the declaration, despite the American Rule, which generally requires each party to bear its own costs. The client felt understandably taken advantage of because this issue could—and should—have been resolved without litigation. Considerable time and resources were diverted from the community for the advantage of a single household, so the Lewis Brisbois team continued to advocate for the association’s contractual right to recover fees. After oral argument, the Court agreed, enforcing the fee‑shifting provisions in the governing documents and ruling in favor of the homeowners’ association. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Builders Support Most of Bipartisan Housing Reform Bill in Congress

March 31, 2026 — Esther D'Amico - Engineering News-Record
Several homebuilding groups say they support most of the massive housing reform bill making its way through Congress but want to see certain provisions including those related to build-to-rent and manufactured homes changed before it advances any further. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Esther D'Amico, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---

Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

May 12, 2026 — Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site

March 03, 2026 — Jason Loring - ConsensusDocs
Artificial intelligence has moved from the conference room to the construction site. Contractors are using AI-powered tools to predict schedule delays, monitor safety through drone footage, optimize equipment maintenance and flag potential hazards in real time. These tools deliver genuine efficiency gains, but they also introduce risks that most construction contracts do not anticipate and many project teams aren’t yet equipped to manage. The problem is that AI tools are probabilistic and not determinative, meaning that they can “hallucinate”: generating confident, but completely wrong, information. Your AI scheduling software might therefore predict a delay that never materializes, causing unnecessary resource mobilization. Your drone monitoring might flag a nonexistent safety hazard, stopping work and costing productivity. Or worse, it might miss a real hazard entirely. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Loring, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Loring may be contacted at jloring@joneswalker.com

---

“The Superintendent Told Us to Do It:” Why Verbal Approval May Not Be Enough

June 02, 2026 — Andrew Lintner - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In construction defect litigation, one scenario appears repeatedly: a subcontractor installs work in a manner that differs from the plans, specifications, manufacturer instructions, or industry standards after being verbally directed to do so by the general contractor, superintendent, architect, or owner’s representative. At the time, the decision may seem minor. The project is moving quickly, the field team wants to maintain progress, and nobody wants to stop working over what appears to be a small issue. The subcontractor may trust the superintendent or project manager and assume the conversation will be remembered later if questions arise. Years later, however, when the project experiences problems, the people involved may deny the conversation occurred, remember it differently, or simply no longer remember the project. Without written documentation, the subcontractor can find itself defending claims for defective work, even though it performed the installation exactly as directed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Lintner, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Lintner may be contacted at alintner@hhmrlaw.com

---

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

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

---