GAP PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Mortgage Company Fails to Prove Loss or Entitlement to Damages, Eliminating Recovery

December 15, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action after the mortgage company failed to prove the loss or entitlement to damages was affirmed. Erie Ins. Co. v. F St. Investments, LLC, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2025). MR DLB Properties LLC was in the business of property restoration and renovation. MR DLB executed a mortgage on three properties as secuirty for payment on a note issued by mortgagee F Street. As a condition of the mortgage, MR DLB obtained commercial liability insurance coverage with Erie. The policy provided $908,100 in replacement/repair property coverage and listed F Street as first mortgagee. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications

March 31, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages. In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Self-Healing Infrastructure Could Pave the Road to the Future

May 05, 2026 — Allan C. Van Vliet - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
A single hairline crack in a bridge deck can seem insignificant. But left undetected, minor cracks and fissures expand, water seeps in, steel corrodes and repair costs start to increase. This risk multiplies across thousands of miles of aging highways and bridges nationwide. As infrastructure endures increasing strain from heavier traffic, extreme weather and deferred maintenance, engineers are exploring “self-healing” systems, where streets and bridges are built with materials that can repair themselves. Concrete, asphalt and composites capable of detecting and mending microcracks autonomously are moving from laboratory research to pilot projects. But while emerging technology promises longer-lasting infrastructure, it also raises questions about long-term maintenance, performance guarantees, procurement frameworks and risk allocation. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Allan C. Van Vliet, Pillsbury
Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com

---

To Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical Considerations

January 13, 2026 — Gerard J. Onorata - ConsensusDocs
Deciding to settle a construction dispute is often wrought with difficulty, requiring the decision maker to evaluate a number of factors. Nevertheless, there are no hard and fast rules that apply when advising a party whether or not they should settle a dispute. Yet the vast majority of construction disputes do settle before going to trial or arbitration. In fact, recent statistics show that approximately 95% of all civil cases, including construction disputes, settle before trial[1]. However, whether settlement is always the best choice depends on several factors to be discussed here. Merits of Your Case First and foremost are the merits of your claims and defenses against any claims that are asserted against you. Construction disputes are inherently fact sensitive, and the merits of a case are driven by the facts of the dispute. Simple breach of contract actions for balances of unpaid funds for the work and materials that have been provided and installed on a project make weighing the merits of the affirmative claim relatively simple. However, these types of “collection cases” stand in stark contrast to complex construction delay claims for equitable adjustment where there exist competing and numerous causes of the delays. In addition, there are complicated legal principles applicable to whether there is entitlement to compensation for the delay or simply an extension of time. Construction defect claims where technical engineering issues are involved also present a heightened level of complexity that may make such cases difficult to prove on the merits. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partners Lauren S. Curtis and Sarah A. Wilkins and Associate Veronica Guerra Win Motion for Summary Judgment

January 21, 2026 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Lauren S. Curtis and Sarah A. Wilkins and Associate Veronica Guerra recently won a motion for summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a matter brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the underlying lawsuit, the insured, a property management company, was being sued in a wrongful death action arising from a shooting that occurred in the common area of a multi-family residential property managed by the insured. The insurer agreed to provide a defense to its insured in the wrongful death action, subject to a reservation of rights based on the policy’s Conditional Coverage Endorsement, which contains various conditions the insured must meet in order for coverage to be triggered under the policy. One of those conditions requires the insured to ensure that a property owner’s insurance policy must not contain any restrictions for assault and battery (“A&B”) exposures, including a sublimit for A&B claims. In this case, the property owner’s insurance policy did indeed contain a sublimit for A&B claims. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

---

Colorado Legislature Considers Series of Bills Aimed at Boosting Affordable Housing Construction in Colorado — What Homebuilders Need to Know

April 08, 2026 — Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & Wilmer
On January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced a series of bills with the goals of addressing affordable housing issues and incentivizing construction in Colorado. House Bill 26-1001 (known as the “Housing Opportunities Made Easier ‘HOME’ Act”) concerns the promotion for residential developments on “qualifying properties” that do not contain exempt parcels through the bypassing of often time-consuming local planning processes. Under HB26-1001, a “qualifying property is any real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by: (i) a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing; (ii) a nonprofit organization that provides public transit; (iii) a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing, provided that the agreement requires the nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property; (iv) a school district; (v) a state college or university; (vi) a housing authority; or (vii) a local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

---