Great Cacapon West Virginia Construction Expert Witness Directory

Dallas County District Court Grants Kahana Feld’s Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

December 30, 2025 — Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld successfully obtained dismissal of a lawsuit in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. The Court granted our Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue their claims after more than 18 months of inactivity, despite an upcoming trial date. Our team demonstrated that the plaintiff had not initiated discovery or scheduled depositions, and furthermore, the delay was not excused by former counsel’s withdrawal. Consequently, the judge declined the plaintiff’s request for additional time and dismissed the case without prejudice. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron

February 02, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Background In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage

April 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025). The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Application of Ordinance and Law Coverage in Property Insurance Policy and Twenty-Five Percent Rule

December 08, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case involved a homeowner’s all-risk property insurance policy with ordinance and law coverage. This ordinance and law coverage required the carrier “to cover costs that the [insureds] incur as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace ‘the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against.” Weston v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2307a (Fla. 2d DCA 2025). The property insurance policy required the insurer to pay the actual cash value of the loss, minus any deductible, and “any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred.” Id. Here, the insureds sustained roof damage from a storm. The insureds had an expert that opined, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the entire roof needed to be replaced because “[t]here was damage to more than twenty-five percent of the roof, and the Florida Building Code provided that if more than twenty-five percent of the roof was damaged, then the entire roof should be replaced.” Weston, supra. The insureds also had an expert that testified to an estimate- the replacement cost of the damage as well as the actual cash value of that damage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!

April 14, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Five Payne & Fears attorneys have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list in recognition of their work across a range of practice areas. This honor reflects their dedication to their clients, depth of experience, and the high standard of service they bring to every matter. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2025 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

January 06, 2026 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the New York office have been selected to the 2025 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list and one associate has been listed in the 2025 New York – Metro Rising Stars. 2025 New York – Metro Super Lawyers

Copernicus Gaza – Insurance Coverage
Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability
Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation
Hillary Raimondi – Employment Litigation
Christopher Russo – Professional Liability
Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability
Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage

2025 New York – Metro Rising Stars

James Wise – Insurance Coverage

Lisa Shrewsberry was also selected to the Top 25: 2025 Westchester County Super Lawyers® list. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Reminder: You Can’t Make Others Indemnify You for Your Own Actions

January 13, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken about Virginia Code 11-4.1 and the prohibition on forcing others to indemnify for the actions of the indemnitees on a few occasions here at Construction Law Musings (See Uniwest Posts). The Western District of Virginia gave its take on indemnification clauses and why they need to be carefully drafted in a December 2024 case, Sauer Construction, LLC v. MC3 Solutions, LLC et al. In Sauer, the Court looked at, among other things, an indemnification provision between MC3, a subcontractor to Sauer, and MC3s sub-subcontractor, Bonitz Flooring Group. This was the relatively typical construction dispute where a general contractor sues a subcontractor and then that subcontractor sues its supplier and sub-subcontractors for indemnity pursuant to its contract. When faced with the indemnification claim, Bonitz argued that the indemnification provision violated the Va. Code 11-4.1 because it required Bonitz to indemnify MC3 for MC3’s actions. The provision follows the break. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

GREAT CACAPON WEST VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES