TOWER MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

AI Adoption in Construction: A UK Practitioner’s View

April 20, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I recently talked with Chris Brady, an AI adoption consultant based in Birmingham, UK, who has spent 18 years working in construction. Two years ago, he began integrating AI into his work with contractors and SMEs, initially as an add-on service, and it has since become his main business. Chris now runs Metrix, an AI consultancy focused on UK construction companies, alongside two other ventures: Trade Upskill, an education platform for construction professionals, and ctrldash.ai, a compliance-automation SaaS for construction SMEs, both of which are soon to launch. What struck me most in our conversation was how grounded his approach is, built on years of direct industry experience rather than arriving from outside with a technology solution looking for a problem. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2025

January 26, 2026 — Jeffrey J. Vita, Michelle A. Grieco, Kiley Stackpole - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The insurance landscape continues to evolve, shaped by litigation that tests the limits of policy language, coverage obligations, and public policy considerations. In 2025, courts across the country issued several significant rulings that will influence how insurers and policyholders navigate claims and risks. Notable trends in 2025 include disputes over property coverage for wildfire and smoke damage, the treatment of interrelated claims under successive D&O policies, enforcement of arbitration clauses in international insurance contracts, and general liability coverage issues—such as construction exclusions for phased projects and limits on coverage for losses tied to the opioid crisis. This publication spotlights the top insurance cases of 2025, highlighting their legal reasoning, practical implications, and impact for policyholders—plus a look ahead at key cases to watch in 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Michelle A. Grieco, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Kiley Stackpole, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Ms. Grieco may be contacted at MGrieco@sdvlaw.com Ms. Stackpole may be contacted at KStackpole@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Prevents Coverage for Collapse

April 27, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the insurer after agreeing that the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause barred coverage. Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 Iii. App. Unpub. LEXIS 133 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026). One of the brick veneer walls of the Lido Motel collapsed during a windstorm. Lido reported the loss it its insurer, AIX. AIX investigated and determined that the brick veneer collapsed due to pervasive wear and tear and corrosion of the underlying infrastructure that secured the veneer- specifically the components that anchored or tied the masonry veneer to the underlying wooden substrate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron

February 02, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Background In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

---

Spain’s Sagrada Familia: Contemporary Construction Methods Speed Iconic Basilica to Completion

March 24, 2026 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
In 2014, the entity behind construction of one of the world’s most iconic churches—the wildly imaginative Sagrada Familia basilica in Barcelona, Spain—contacted global consultant Arup with a challenge: Could the firm help the project team update designs developed more than a century earlier, to ensure that a critical project component was built to be structurally sound? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

---

Don’t Hire Me! (Principle Is Expensive, and Lawsuits Based on Principle Are Even More Expensive)

February 10, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
I spend a lot of time trying to convince my clients to NOT hire me. I’m not crazy—let me explain. Litigation is costly. Very costly. And it is time consuming. Don’t get me wrong—I will go to Court and fight just as hard as you want me to, but I want you to know what you are facing before you go down that road. Now, obviously, if you are the one that is being sued, you have no choice but to defend yourself and your Firm. But if you are considering suing someone else, think long and hard about it before you pull the trigger. There are ways to reduce cost, time, and risk: for example, pre-suit or early mediation, or agreeing to arbitration in lieu of trial. But I always want my clients to know that real law is not like Law & Order. Things take time. A trial is often a year or more away from when you first file the lawsuit. Make your decisions on not just your heart, but your economic brain as well. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

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 - ConsensusDocs
To 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...

---

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

---