BARWICK GEORGIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

July 13, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & Wilmer
On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Flatiron Said Disputed Concrete Mix Cost Millions on Large Caltrans Project

June 22, 2026 — Elaine Silver & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
For awhile in 2023, part of the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Fix 50 HOV lane and resurfacing project in Sacramento itself needed to be fixed. Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record and Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

---

4th Department Narrowly Interprets Professional Services

August 11, 2026 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Cty. of Erie v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 NY Slip Op 04092 (App. Div. 4th Dept.), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that a general liability carrier for a construction manager owed additional insured coverage to the County of Erie, notwithstanding an exclusion in the construction manager’s policy for injuries arising out of professional services. The underlying case involved injuries sustained when the underlying plaintiff fell off of her bicycle at a park owned by the County when she transitioned from the pavement edge to grass. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Buffalo, NY Stadium Work Resumes After Suspects ID'ed in $150K Graffiti Vandalism

March 17, 2026 — Emell D. Adolphus - Engineering News-Record
Construction work is back on track at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park, N.Y., after police identifed, but did not arrest two suspects in connection with $150,000 in property damage that paused work for nearly one week at the $2.1 billion stadium project, said the Gilbane Building Cos. and Turner Construction joint venture building it for the National Football League’s Buffalo Bills. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Adolphus may be contacted at adolphuse@enr.com

---

Damage from Frozen Pipes Excluded from Coverage

March 31, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Texas law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for damage to the insured’s commercial building due to the bursting of frozen pipes. Barona v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257379 (S.D. Texas Dec. 12, 2025). Freezing weather froze Barona’s plumbing fixtures, causing significant water damage to the commercial property when the plumbing eventually expanded and burst. State Farm sent an inspector. During the inspection, Barona stated that he turned off the heat to his building but did not shut off the water supply or drain the pipes. State Farm denied covered based on the policy’s exclusion for frozen plumbing. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders

August 24, 2026 — Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & Wilmer
After filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1 Background McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer, Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

July 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:

Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”

Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---