Northbridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

May 14, 2026 — Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning Berman
A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

July 20, 2026 — Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
I. Course of Construction Exclusions Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy. General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

Underlying Complaint Alleges Possibility of Coverage, Triggering Duty to Defend

September 15, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute among insurers for various defendants in the underlying case regarding the providing of a defense, the Second Circuit vacated, in part, the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. New Your Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087 (2nd Cir. June 23, 2026). Mary Guzman, who worked for a cleaning company, PBM, LLC, alleged that she was injured when a glass panel in a revolving door fell onto her as she cleaned the door. She filed suit in state court against the owners of the building as well as the lessee of the fifteenth floor where the accident occurred, Bank of New York Mellon (Bank). She alleged the owners and the Bank were negligent in creating the dangerous condition that caused her injury. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Navigating Timelines and Technology: Patent Strategies for Space and Earth

June 01, 2026 — Kate Nuehring Su & Vanessa Wang - Engineering News-Record
More than half a century after the Apollo 11 landing fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s bold vision, the global race back to the Moon is no longer theoretical. With renewed attention on NASA’s Artemis program and a surge of commercial investment in space infrastructure, lunar exploration is again shaping technology priorities here on Earth. Reprinted courtesy of Kate Nuehring Su, Engineering News-Record and Vanessa Wang, Engineering News-Record Read the full story...
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

No Bad Faith Despite Insurer’s Appraisal Award Exceeding Initial Payment

August 03, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding no bad faith despite the appraisal award exceeding the amount the insurer initially paid. Jazi Kat 4659 Rockridge LLC, et al. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., et al., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105634 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2026). Plaintiffs sued Travelers for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that Travelers failed to pay money plaintiffs were owed under the policy. Plaintiffs held a commercial property policy for two properties. A fire destroyed one of the properties. Travelers adjusted the claim and issued two payments. Plaintiffs disagreed with the amount of the payments and demanded an appraisal. Travelers agreed to the appraisal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insured’s Failure to Determine Depreciation When Presenting Claim for Replacement Cost Value

August 16, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the insurer when the insured submitted replacement cost value of the loss but did not include a determination of depreciation. Kimmel v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (3d Cir. June 9, 2026). A lightning strike downed a tree on the insured’s property, causing extensive damage to the home. The insured had a homeowner’s policy with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC). MBIC denied the claim, determining that much of the claimed damage already existed and that several policy exclusions otherwise barred coverage. The insured filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

What Is the Independent Tort Doctrine? New Case Explains…

August 24, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeals in Atout v. HHM Land Trust Dated October 29, 2013, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1569a (Fla. 6th DCA 2026) recently included an extensive discussion on Florida’s independent tort doctrine. The independent tort doctrine is an important legal doctrine, particularly when parties are in contractual privity. This doctrine stands for the proposition that tort claims must be independent of any breach of contract. See Atout, supra. The Sixth District’s extensive discussion analyzed the indicators to determine this “independence,” which may arise from the source of the duty, the asserted conduct, the damages sought, or even public policy: Unlike claims that rely on contractual relationships, an “independent” tort is often characterized by a duty imposed by law rather than by agreement. As to this consideration, United States District Court Judge Steven Merryday has explained that the independent tort doctrine honors the same divide as the economic loss rule, but rather than looking at the nature of the loss, it focuses on the source of the duty allegedly breached. “If a contract imposes a duty, and the defendant breaches that duty, the plaintiff must sue for breach of contract. If society imposes the duty, the plaintiff must sue in tort.” Following this reasoning, courts should consider whether the alleged breach of a duty in tort coincides or overlaps with a duty imposed by a contract. If the duty at issue is within the scope of a contract, and the relationship of the parties that led to the creation of that duty stems from a contract, then that duty’s source is from contract and any alleged tort claims based on a breach of those duties may not be “independent.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Goal Is the Repair, Not the Lawsuit: What Colorado HOA Boards Should Consider Before Suing a Builder

September 08, 2026 — Gail Gudder - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Fourteen years ago, we cautioned Colorado homeowners associations against a “ready, fire, aim” approach to construction-defect litigation. In The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation, we suggested a fairly simple proposition: when legitimate construction defects exist, the goal should be to get them repaired. Litigation should be a last resort, not an end in itself. Much has changed in Colorado construction-defect law since then. But a recent Douglas County case, and significant amendments to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) enacted in 2025, provide good reasons for HOA board members and owners to revisit that basic premise. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gail Gudder, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Gudder may be contacted at gudder@hhmrlaw.com

NORTHBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES