U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Inaccurate Representations Can Lead to Differing Site Conditions Claim
May 26, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn 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 NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Ball Janik LLP Elevates Construction Litigation Attorneys Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner
February 02, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPOrlando, FL – January 28, 2026 –
Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce the elevation of
Keegan A. Berry and
Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner, effective 2026. Both attorneys are dedicated to their clients and have provided significant contributions to the firm's Construction Defect and Litigation practice.
"Keegan and Nicholas exemplify the excellence and client-focused approach that define Ball Janik LLP," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "Their elevation to Partner reflects not only their exceptional legal skills and dedication to our clients but also their commitment to advancing the firm's mission. We are proud to recognize their achievements and look forward to their continued leadership."
Berry is based in Ball Janik LLP's Orlando office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. Throughout his career, Berry has focused on complex litigation and resolving matters through arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, and trial, with extensive experience both prosecuting and defending construction claims on behalf of owners, contractors, and manufacturers. His practice also encompasses complex commercial and general litigation, including business torts, professional liability, products liability, and general liability.
"I'm honored to continue serving Florida's business and property owner communities as a partner at Ball Janik, leveraging my experience to deliver efficient, results-driven solutions in even the most complex construction disputes," said Berry.
Vargo is based in Ball Janik LLP's Tampa office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. He focuses on Construction Litigation, representing residential and commercial property owners in construction defect litigation. Vargo has spent most of his career in construction defect law with Ball Janik and has been instrumental in growing Ball Janik's presence in Florida's west coast.
"Becoming a partner at Ball Janik is both a privilege and a responsibility, and I look forward to continuing to advocate fiercely for our clients while holding accountable those who attempt to evade their obligations," said Vargo.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com/.
Insurer’s Late Notice Argument Fails Due to Lack of Prejudice
December 30, 2025 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court refused to dismiss the insured’s claim for hail damage based on late notice because the insurer failed to demonstrate it had suffered prejudice. Borene UMC v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210767 (W.D. Texas Oct. 27, 2025).
Boerne UMC owned multiple buildings that were allegedly damaged during a hailstorm that occurred in May 2021. In August 2022, Boerne hired a contractor to inspect the roofs. The contractor found damage to several roofs and HVAC units and prepared an estimate for repair of over $700,000. Boerne submitted a claim to its insurer, Church Mutual on November 17, 2022.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
BWB&O’s LA Team Secures a Defense Victory for General Contractor Client in Riverside Superior Court!
January 13, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Woodland Hills Partner
Daniel Crespo and Associate
Lauren Landau for securing a defense victory on behalf of one of our general contractor clients!
The Riverside Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, finding the plaintiff’s core allegation was flatly contradicted by video evidence. The Court held that surveillance footage conclusively showed the minor did not fall into an “open trench” as alleged, but instead fell after voluntarily jumping over a temporary construction fence stabilizer.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Moving in Before Substantial Completion? The Risks of Early Owner Occupancy
March 24, 2026 —
Sydney Koby - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
On many construction projects, particularly large projects facing schedule pressure, owners may begin occupying or using portions of the project before the work reaches substantial completion. This is often due to operational needs, phased turnover, or market demands that drive owners to take possession of all or part of a project while construction activities are ongoing. While early occupancy may seem practical, it can blur the lines of responsibility between owner and contractor and can create significant legal and practical complications.
These disputes are especially common on large, complex projects where punch list work, system commissioning, and closeout activities overlap with owner use. Without clear documentation and carefully drafted contract provisions, early occupancy can undermine an owner’s ability to enforce completion requirements while simultaneously exposing the contractor to claims of delay, inefficiency, or interference.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sydney Koby, Jones WalkerMs. Koby may be contacted at
skoby@joneswalker.com
Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires
March 24, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined.
In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2026 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars
February 02, 2026 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2026 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, two Associates have been
Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability PolicyA Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part IIIntentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an OccurrenceProcedural Matters Matter!Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in TexasNew York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure SaleWARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence PolicyWhen Logic Doesn’t Matter: Why ‘Irrational’ Isn’t a Ground to Overturn an Arbitration Award in TennesseeOSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS UnveiledTop Developments - 2025, Issue 1Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its EyesWith Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction ContractsCGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property DamageReal Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/17/22) – Glass Ceilings, Floating Homes and the Inflation Reduction ActAn Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits ProvisionsDelay Matters: Florida’s Fourth DCA Reverses Hurricane Irma DismissalArbitration—No Opportunity for AppealArchitectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches LawsuitYet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t MixNorth Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest StormInjured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred ThousandA Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to HomeownersInsurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal IssuedLas Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice DepartmentJust Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of ForeclosureTraub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy ConditionsFull Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes ShapeLargest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches MilestonePhiladelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) ProgramThe Supreme Court’s Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings in the 2024 Term and Preview of Cases to Be Decided in Fall 2025Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for ContractorsLet’s Get Specific: Rhode Island Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State ManufacturerWhen Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General ContractorsPine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime MortgagesColorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' BasementsFatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to RecoveryMilhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award WinnerCurtain Wall Suppliers Claim Rival Duplicated Unique SystemCourt Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by PolicyMy Construction Law Wish ListJapan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant OfflineResearch Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs ConsiderablyParties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?"Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found AmbiguousContract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of ContractContractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury FeesJury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in PersonSchool District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a DutyWhere There’s Smoke, Is There Coverage? A Closer Look at Bottega, LLC v. National Surety and Gharibian v. WawanesaReplacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the TimeNYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighborser Order Compelling Appraisal
Smoke and Soot Constitute Direct Physical Loss
