ORTING WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

$356 Million Judgement Against Developer for Defective Construction of DC Condominium

August 16, 2026 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law Group
On July 31, 2026, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered a $356,085,513.00 judgment against developers JBG Smith for defective construction and renovation of the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium in Washington, D.C. The case is Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association v. JBG Smith Properties, et al., No. 2020 CA 004807 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). In a 148-page Trial Order, the D.C. Superior Court awarded $118,695,171.00 in damages in favor of the condominium association and against the condominium developers, including JBG Smith. The Court trebled those damages pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to reach an ultimate judgment of $356,085,513.00. See Cowie Law Group: DC Condominium Construction Defects: Recovering Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Expenses & Treble Damages Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Cowie Law Group, P.C. filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Association in 2020. The firm represented the Association throughout years of pretrial discovery and ultimately served as trial counsel with Williams & Connolly LLP during a lengthy bench trial before the Honorable Yvonne Williams. The Cowie Law Group team included attorneys, George A. Bealefeld, III, Albert G. McCarraher, Stanford L. Kimmel, III and Nicholas D. Cowie. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

---

Federal Bid Protest Standard of Review and Disparate Treatment with Ratings

August 16, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent decision out of the Federal Claims Court explains the post-award bid protest standard of review. In Massman Construction Co. v. U.S., 2026 WL 1971985 (Fed.Cl. 2026), a protestor brought a post-award bid protest after the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to another contractor. The protestor argued that the Army Corps (government) acted irrational in its evaluation through disparate treatment. The Court of Federal Claims agreed and remanded for the Army Corps to “either justify this disparity or explain why [awardee’s] lower-priced, but technically inferior proposal provides the best value to the government.” Massman Construction, supra at *1. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process

April 27, 2026 — David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLP
On April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process. Background In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE. Reprinted courtesy of David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP, Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP, Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit

May 12, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Mike D’Andrea and Associates Ruth Rasiah and Kaylah Abdullah in the Los Angeles office for obtaining a complete dismissal of their clients in a significant claim involving California’s Public Utilities regulations. After lengthy litigation, BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Claimant, Spectrum (Charter Communications), which resulted in a complete dismissal of the action against BWB&O’s clients. At issue was whether California’s Public Utilities Code shifted the common law duty to maintain certain utility equipment in residential areas within Southern California. After significant briefing, the Superior Court found that BWB&O correctly argued that the Public Utilities Code required utility companies, like Spectrum, to fully maintain utility equipment, and that private residents are not responsible for utility maintenance (even if the physical equipment is located on private property). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Fatalities Edge Down: New Data Reveals a Promising Decline

April 27, 2026 — Construction Executive
Construction fatalities in the United States declined slightly in 2024, according to new data released from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sector recorded just over 1,000 worker deaths last year—a modest decrease from the previous year but still among the highest totals of any industry. Falls remained the leading cause of death, accounting for roughly one-third of all construction fatalities. Transportation incidents—including workers struck by vehicles or equipment—ranked second, followed by contact with objects or equipment and electrocutions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

July 13, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In the past week or so mandatory arbitration has been all the rage. From those that argue that arbitration is becoming more burdensome than litigation, to my friend and fellow construction attorney Scott Wolfe who gives great advice on how to make arbitration worth it again. You can place me in the camp of those that think that mandatory arbitration clauses of the type typically found in contracts can add a layer of expense that can be unnecessary. However, if an arbitration clause is carefully drafted, and properly used, these clauses an be helpful in assuring that the streamlining effect for which arbitration was created actually occurs. Because the contract is king in Virginia, these provisions can essentially create the rule of civil procedure used to resolve any dispute relating to the project. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Sausage-Making Often Relies on the Good Sense of the Chef Rather than the Recipe

June 23, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Even for lawyers, the rules governing litigation can get complex and convoluted. Does something need to be filed? What needs to be filed? When is the deadline for filing? Simple questions with not always with straightforward answers. This was the case in R & J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co. of California, 111 Cal.App.5th 878 (2025), which involved sheet metal panels lost when they fell into the Port of Long Beach harbor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

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

---