Bluefield Virginia Construction Expert Witness Directory

Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

May 14, 2026 — Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis Brisbois
Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

Additional Insureds Owed a Defense in Underlying Personal Injury Suit

March 03, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted partial summary judgment on the duty to defend to two additional insureds who were named as defendants in the underlying personal injury suit. In re Third St. Equity, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234909 (E.D. N. Y. Dec. 2, 2025). Third Street Equity LLD hired Developing NY State, LLC as the contractor for a construction project. Developing NY entered a subcontract agreement with Capital Source Concrete NY LLC for concrete work as well as labor and services for a construction project. The subcontract required that Capital Concrete keep the construction site free of debris, waste material or rubbish. Further, Capital Concrete was responsible for compliance with OSHA safety regulations. It was also agreed that Capital Concrete would obtain liability and workers compensation insurance naming Third Street and Developing NY as additional insureds. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices

August 11, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

Limitations of Liability Provisions in Construction Contracts: A Means to Manage Risk and Limit Financial Exposure

June 23, 2026 — Ellen Chapelle, Richard Reizen, Hannah Batsche - Construction Executive
Taking a cue from architects and engineers, construction contractors have started inserting limitation of liability clauses in their construction contracts to manage risk and limit financial exposure. This article will address the specific risks that can be limited through an LOL, tips for negotiating the LOL terms with reluctant owners to cover those specific risks, how to limit unintended consequences of an LOL (such as relieving an insurer of its obligations to cover certain losses), and approaches to setting the amount of the liability cap in the LOL. Addressing Particular Risks An LOL can address a wide range of risks, including:

Damages for delay
Liability for non-conforming or defective work
Liability for third-party bodily injury or property damage
Liability excluded by a general liability policy (e.g., pollution and cyber liability)
Liability related to intellectual property

New York Enacts First-in-the-Nation Statewide Data Center Moratorium

August 03, 2026 — Joshua L. Sturtevant - Sheppard
As of May 2026, nearly 12 gigawatts of data center load requests were in the New York Independent System Operator interconnection queue, with more than two-thirds of capacity requests entering the queue in 2025 alone. On July 14, 2026, in response to concerns over this rapid growth, Governor Kathy Hochul issued Executive Order No. 62 (the “Order”) imposing a temporary moratorium on data centers in New York State. Among the concerns cited in the Order are the cost burden on ratepayers associated with transmission upgrades required to accommodate large loads, potential environmental impacts, and large-scale water use. The moratorium is intended to halt activities while the state government develops a comprehensive legal framework for data center development. While dozens of municipal and county-level moratoriums are in place throughout the U.S., and while the legislatures of several states, including Maine, have proposed moratoriums, the Order is the first statewide moratorium to be enacted nationally. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua L. Sturtevant, Sheppard
Mr. Sturtevant may be contacted at jsturtevant@sheppard.com

The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues

August 03, 2026 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction. Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.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...

Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

May 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

BLUEFIELD VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES