Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

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

Tracy Cowan Honored as “Icon” in Missouri Lawyers Media’s First-Ever “Illinois Legal Leaders” Awards

September 15, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
St. Louis Managing Partner Tracy Cowan has been named an “Icon” by Missouri Lawyers Media in its inaugural “Illinois Legal Leaders” awards program. Mr. Cowan was among 14 people who earned “Icon” status in the awards program. This category honors “senior leaders with 30 years or more of legal practice” and is one of three groups recognized. The other two include “Up & Coming Lawyers,” for attorneys with 10 or fewer years in legal practice, and “Leaders in the Law,” which recognizes members of the bar who have significantly contributed to the practice of law in the state, the local legal community, and the broader community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

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

Potential Gap in Workers Compensation Immunity Statutory Framework

June 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Workers compensation insurance is important. As an owner, you want to ensure the contractors you hire have workers compensation insurance. Assuming you hire a contractor that is statutorily exempt from workers compensation, you want to make sure, no exception, that any subcontractor that is hired has workers compensation insurance. (Regardless, you always want subcontractors to have workers compensation insurance.). In construction, the prime contractor serves as the “statutory employer” for purposes of workers compensation insurance. With workers compensation comes workers compensation immunity. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Appeals Court Upholds Skanska, Granite Win in ‘I-4 Ultimate’ JV Dispute

June 15, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision requiring The Lane Construction Corp. to pay roughly $79 million in damages, plus interest, to joint venture partners Skanska USA Civil Southeast and Granite Construction for work on Florida’s I-4 Ultimate highway megaproject in Orlando, which was completed in 2022. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

Miller Act Payment Bond Claim “No Nos!”

October 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent federal district court opinion, Sauer Construction, LLC v. United Structures of Georgia, LLC, 2026 WL 2522849 (M.D.Fla. 2026), addressed two worthy considerations when it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim. And, when I am talking about considerations, I am really talking about “no-nos.” These are things you don’t do. First, don’t file an untimely Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Make sure, as a claimant, you file that lawsuit within one year from your final furnishing. In this case, the subcontractor claimant did not and tried to argue around the statute of limitations with an equitable tolling argument, i.e., that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled to accommodate the late filing of the lawsuit. Guess what? The subcontractor was not successful. You are fighting an uphill (losing) battle when arguing equitable tolling because “traditional equitable tolling principles require that the claimant demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment.” Sauer Construction, supra. This means you need ultra-persuasive evidence to support such equitable tolling principles. Actually, having this evidence is doubtful. Thus, timely file the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason not to. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Federal Court Highlights the Strategic Value of Additional Insured Coverage

June 22, 2026 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A recent decision from the District of Maryland underscores a recurring—but often underutilized—opportunity for policyholders: securing and enforcing additional insured coverage under another party’s liability policy. In Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Builders Premier Insurance Co., the court held that an equipment lessor qualified as an additional insured under the lessee’s policy and was entitled to a primary defense. The decision is a useful reminder that additional insured coverage can fundamentally shift defense obligations and materially reduce a policyholder’s exposure. We build on the decision to highlight the practical steps policyholders should take to ensure that all potentially available insurance is identified and pursued. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES