Coltons Point Maryland Construction Expert Witness Directory

Safeguarding Your Privileged Construction Information With a Clawback Agreement

June 08, 2026 — Laura Fraher - Construction Executive
For contractors and construction executives, a dispute that escalates to litigation brings risks that go well beyond the jobsite. When a dispute escalates to litigation, the attorney-client privilege is a critical protection to safeguard your interests. Disclosing privileged material can undermine your litigation position and, in some cases, negatively impact your business. In the construction context, this often includes sensitive communications about project delays, defect investigations, safety incidents or payment disputes—materials that can significantly impact both liability and reputation. During litigation, the discovery process requires the exchange of documents and data with your adversary. If privileged materials are disclosed to your adversary during discovery you risk the waiver of your privilege, which in plain terms means you lose the protection of the privilege and make the privileged information, and in some cases all other information related to the same subject matter, available to your adversary. It is critical that your attorney take steps to protect against the unintentional disclosure of privileged materials during discovery to avoid a waiver. Reprinted courtesy of Laura Fraher, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Ms. Fraher may be contacted at lfraher@barclaydamon.com

Builders Oppose Senate Housing Bill Over Investor Ban Provision

March 24, 2026 — Katy O'Donnell - Bloomberg
A powerful group representing the nation’s home builders is coming out against the most significant housing legislation in more than a decade over a provision negotiated by the White House that would restrict institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes. The builders’ objection could imperil the bill’s chances of becoming law, even as leaders of both parties are desperate to show they are doing something to alleviate voters’ cost-of-living concerns. The Senate voted 90-8 to clear a procedural hurdle for the bill on Wednesday, with a vote on final passage expected early next week. The inclusion of the investor ban in a broader housing bill was key to getting the White House on board, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Tuesday. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katy O'Donnell, Bloomberg

HHMR and Every One of its Partners Recognized by Legal 500 in Denver Elite – Real Estate

April 20, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is pleased to announce its recognition as a Tier 1 firm in the Denver Elite rankings for Real Estate, a category that includes construction law and construction litigation, by The Legal 500. In addition, each of the firm’s partners has been individually recognized in the same rankings. The firm’s individual recognitions include:

David M. McLain — Tier 1
Ricky L. Nolen, Jr. — Tier 2
Lisa Bondy Dunn — Tier 3

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.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

Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test

March 31, 2026 — Catherine Maronski - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards. The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Maronski, Robinson Cole
Ms. Maronski may be contacted at cmaronski@rc.com

Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move

April 27, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers. FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

Tampa Team Obtains Highly Favorable Verdict for Property Owner Client in Lawsuit over Traffic Accident

March 24, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Tampa Managing Partner John Rine and Partner Nick Dareneau obtained a very favorable verdict for their property owner client in a Sarasota County trial in a lawsuit arising from a traffic accident. At the end of closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel requested appropriately $18 million from the jury. The jury returned a net verdict of just over a thousand dollars. The plaintiff was on a scooter and was involved in an accident with an SUV in a parking lot intersection. Our firm represented the property owner. The plaintiffs argued that the landscape vegetation was too tall and violated the sight lines of the two drivers, and that the height of the shrubbery violated the owner’s landscaping contract and a local sight line ordinance. They also argued that the intersection lacked a stop sign in contrast to the other six parking lot entrances, which had stop signs. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

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

COLTONS POINT MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES