DEEP RUN NORTH CAROLINA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor

May 14, 2026 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Fourth Circuit in APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 24-1969, 2026 WL 458402 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) recently endorsed broad coverage for additional insureds, interpreting “arising out of” broadly under North Carolina law to extend coverage to a repaving company under its subcontractor’s liability insurance policy. The court held that an additional insured’s liability “arising out of” a named insured’s work in an additional-insured endorsement means liability “relating to” or “causally connected to” the named insured’s operations, rather than liability defined more narrowly as “caused by” or “the fault of” the named insured. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

---

Court Compels Appraisal Although Coverage Issues Exist

February 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California federal district court granted the insured’s motion to compel appraisal despite the existence of outstanding coverage issues. K4 Dev. LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211337 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6. 2025). The insured owned hotel property. It was insured by ACE while the hotel was under construction. During construction, the hotel suffered rainwater damage due to incomplete roofing systems. The water damaged the interior finishes and furnishings from the 6th floor down to the basement, including 32 guestrooms. The insured’s experts determined that the covered water losses delayed the hotel’s opening by 144 days. The insured submitted a claim for the water damage, covered claim expenses, and delay in opening losses. ACE denied the claim for delay in opening losses, stating that its expert determined the Water Events did not delay the hotel’s opening. ACE, however, did pay for the repair damage caused by the Water Events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Are Robotic Coworkers Soon a Reality in Construction?

March 24, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
General-purpose humanoid robots are in the headlines, but is the hype justified? What’s the point of having a robot home assistant when it still needs a “guy behind the curtain” to control it remotely? Despite the challenges, robots, even those that look like humans, are seriously considered as future coworkers in business environments. According to the McKinsey report ‘Will embodied AI create robotic coworkers?‘ the idea that AI-powered robots will become general-purpose coworkers is grounded in real technological progress, but not an overnight reality. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

May 12, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site. This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it. The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Identifying Unfair Clauses in Construction Contracts

February 17, 2026 — Curtis W. Martin - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 1979, virtually all projects were completed under form contracts. As I started practicing construction law, it seemed that most form contracts were generally fair. They were negotiated by industry groups and over the next 10-20 years they appeared to become fairer. We could and did compare provisions in the AIA documents, the Federal contract forms, and the EJCDC agreements. When we did, we found subtle differences, but broad similarities in their approach to contract risk allocation. Today many (most?) private projects are done with “manuscript” contracts – instruments tailored to the owner’s interests. And many public entities have developed their own contracts. And not all those clauses seem so fair. This month I focus on contract clauses that I consider unfair. And while unfairness, like beauty, may be in the eye of the beholder, I think that the clauses described below aptly fit that descriptor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.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...

---

Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements

April 14, 2026 — Abby Dvorkin - Snell & Wilmer
The ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project. Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Abby Dvorkin, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Dvorkin may be contacted at advorkin@swlaw.com

---

Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions

May 12, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Contract drafting and interpretation matters. A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language. But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:

Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.

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

---