Sassamansville Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Directory

Meaningful Change to Contractors License Law Disgorgement Rule of Business and Professions Code Section 7031

November 02, 2026 — Garret Mandel - Porter Law Group
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 has historically imposed a severe and unforgiving penalty on any licensed contractor or subcontractor (“licensee”) performing any construction work after its contractor’s license becomes suspended or is revoked. The penalty for many years has been a prohibition against the licensee bringing an action to collect payment owed and a draconian penalty allowing the party who paid the licensee to recover, or cause the licensee to “disgorge,” any payment the licensee received for the entire contract. This strict penalty could apply to funds received for the entire contract even when the license was suspended or revoked for only a short period of time during the project. This meant, for example, that a licensee who was paid $10 million under a contract for a project that took a year to build could have to disgorge the entire $10 million it received under that contract as a result of performing work while its license was suspended for only a week of the entire project duration. Draconian indeed. A limited statutory substantial-compliance exemption could provide relief, but it requires a court determination that the statutory conditions have been met. Beginning on January 1, 2027, the licensee will be thrown a lifeline on this issue. Under California Senate Bill 342, becoming effective on January 1, 2027, California contractors on qualifying projects will no longer face the same severe penalties – but there are limitations. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Mandel, Porter Law Group
Mr. Mandel may be contacted at gmandel@porterlaw.com

4th Department Narrowly Interprets Professional Services

August 11, 2026 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Cty. of Erie v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 NY Slip Op 04092 (App. Div. 4th Dept.), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that a general liability carrier for a construction manager owed additional insured coverage to the County of Erie, notwithstanding an exclusion in the construction manager’s policy for injuries arising out of professional services. The underlying case involved injuries sustained when the underlying plaintiff fell off of her bicycle at a park owned by the County when she transitioned from the pavement edge to grass. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage

July 06, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026). Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage. The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Underlying Complaint Alleges Possibility of Coverage, Triggering Duty to Defend

September 15, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute among insurers for various defendants in the underlying case regarding the providing of a defense, the Second Circuit vacated, in part, the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. New Your Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087 (2nd Cir. June 23, 2026). Mary Guzman, who worked for a cleaning company, PBM, LLC, alleged that she was injured when a glass panel in a revolving door fell onto her as she cleaned the door. She filed suit in state court against the owners of the building as well as the lessee of the fifteenth floor where the accident occurred, Bank of New York Mellon (Bank). She alleged the owners and the Bank were negligent in creating the dangerous condition that caused her injury. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

July 13, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & Wilmer
On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke Win Final Summary Judgment on Behalf of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

November 02, 2026 — Ryan S. Parker, Robert Biferie & Matthew Groteke - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke won final summary judgment on behalf of their client, a homeowner’s insurance company. The case related to a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Milton, which was reported more than ten months after the date of loss. The homeowner’s insurance company reviewed historical aerial photography of the roof and determined that there was no evidence of damage immediately after the Hurricane, which was inconsistent with the condition of the roof when it was inspected more than ten months later. Additionally, the homeowner’s insurance company was unable to determine when the interior water damage occurred due to the delay in reporting the claim. After a lawsuit was filed, the Traub Lieberman team took depositions of the Plaintiffs and the opposing expert and eventually filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the failure to timely report the claim and resulting prejudice to their client. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that notice of the claim was untimely as a matter of law and that the Plaintiffs failed to rebut the legal presumption of prejudice to the insurance company. As a result of the ruling, the insurance company has a valid claim for attorney’s fees. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan S. Parker, Traub Lieberman, Robert Biferie, Traub Lieberman and Matthew Groteke, Traub Lieberman Mr. Parker may be contacted at rparker@tlsslaw.com Mr. Biferie may be contacted at rbiferie@tlsslaw.com Mr. Groteke may be contacted at mgroteke@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

We Won’t Permit That Excuse!

June 23, 2026 — Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocs
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit? But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation. The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

When Projects Go Off Schedule: Navigating Construction Delays and Disputes

October 20, 2026 — Shay Kulkarni - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Shay Kulkarni, Partner in P&A’s San Diego office, was recently featured on Racho Mesa Insurance Services’ StudioOne™ Safety and Risk Management Podcast Network, in an episode titled, “When Projects Go Off Schedule: Navigating Construction Delays and Disputes.” During the episode, Shay joins Josh Hill, Surety Account Executive at Rancho Mesa, to discuss the best practices for navigating delays, disruptions, and disputes that arise during construction projects. The conversation explores how careful contract review, thorough project documentation, timely notice, and proactive risk management can help contractors safeguard their rights and more effectively address potential conflicts. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shay Kulkarni, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Kulkarni may be contacted at skulkarni@pecklaw.com

SASSAMANSVILLE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES