Prosperity Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Directory

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

August 16, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense. But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence. Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

July 20, 2026 — Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
I. Course of Construction Exclusions Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy. General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

GRSM Ranked Among Texas’ 50 Largest Law Firms by Texas Lawyer

August 03, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized byTexas Lawyer in its 2026 Texas 100 ranking, earning the No. 49 spot among the state’s largest law firms by attorney headcount. The annual report spotlights the continued strength of Texas’ legal market, with firms across the state collectively increasing lawyer headcount by 2% in 2025. “Texas continues to be one of the country’s most thriving legal and business markets, and we are proud to be recognized among the state’s largest law firms,” said Laura De Santos, Regional Oversight Partner for Texas. “Our continued growth shows the confidence our clients place in us, the exceptional talent of our attorneys, and our commitment to delivering seamless, high-quality legal services throughout Texas and across our 50-state platform.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?

June 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages. As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Inaccurate Representations Can Lead to Differing Site Conditions Claim

May 26, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In the prior posting, I discussed a case dealing with a differing site condition. In that case, the owner did not have an affirmative duty to make a representation and there was no inaccurate representation made by the owner that misled the contractor. Well, what about when there is an inaccurate misrepresentation regarding the site? This was the circumstance in an older Florida case where a dredging contractor had a successful differing site conditions claim. See Jacksonville Port Authority v. Parkhill-Goodloe, Co., Inc., 362 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The government provided inaccurate information as to the lack of rock that would be encountered during the dredging that was relied on by the dredging contractor. But the government had “superior knowledge” that there was rock in an adjacent location based on a prior claim from a contractor, yet the government did not disclose the possibility that rock could be encountered. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.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

OC Streetcar Project Mediation Sets $50M Payment to Walsh

July 20, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Walsh Construction told a California state court judge last month that lawsuit mediation of its claims on an Orange County light-rail project—known as OC Streetcar—had produced a settlement of some claims under which the county agreed to pay the contractor almost an additional $50 million. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

PROSPERITY PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES