Mertens Texas Construction Expert Witness Directory

Collapse Claim Dismissed as Untimely

January 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insureds’ suit for coverage due to a collapse of their barn was dismissed while the bad faith against the insurer survived. Funaro v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227346 (W. D. Pa. Nov 19, 2025). The insureds’ barn was insured by State Farm. The insureds alleged that the barn roof collapsed from the weight of snow, causing damage to the structure of the barn itself and the contents of the barn (including a custom French stove that the insureds alleged was worth between $90,000 and $100,000). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

California Enacts Change Order Fair Payment Act

March 24, 2026 — Michael J. Baker - Snell & Wilmer
For private works construction contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026, recent legislation establishes a claims and dispute resolution process for change orders. The law is codified at Civil Code § 8850. A synopsis of the pertinent provisions includes the following:

Submitting a Claim. Contractors or subcontractors must submit a detailed, documented claim when requesting additional time or payment.
Owner’s Response Time. The owner must meet and confer within thirty (30) days after receiving the claim. Within ten (10) days of meeting, the owner must provide a written statement identifying which portions of the claim are undisputed and which are disputed. An owner’s failure to respond is treated as disputing the entire claim.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Baker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Baker may be contacted at mjbaker@swlaw.com

AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season

April 08, 2026 — Meghan Douris - The Construction Seyt
Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency. What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong. On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.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

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

FERC’s New Order on Data Center Co-Location: What Utilities Need to Know

January 26, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On December 18, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a pivotal order to PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest regional wholesale power grid operator running the transmission system in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Order intends to help reshape how large loads—especially data centers—connect to the grid in the face of massive load growth from artificial intelligence (AI) hyperscalers. At FERC’s monthly open meeting, the commissioners unanimously approved the Order, finding that PJM’s existing tariff does not adequately address the issue of co-locating large loads with data centers and electric generation. The Order was issued in FERC Docket Nos. EL24-49-000 et al., can be found at this link. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com

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...

Four Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

March 17, 2026 — Payne & Fears
We congratulate our four Payne & Fears attorneys who have been named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars. This recognition highlights the next generation of legal talent, honoring attorneys who have made a strong impact in their practice areas early in their careers. Employment & Labor Taylor Brown Bree Oswald Employment Litigation: Defense Tyler Runge Business Litigation Brian Shaw Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears

MERTENS TEXAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES