RICHWOODS MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Owner Taking Assignment of General Contractor’s Claims Against a Subcontractor(s)

September 21, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects. The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims. This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out. The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

EPA Steps Back, Arizona Moves Forward

May 12, 2026 — Patrick J. Paul, John Habib & Sukhmani K. Singh - Snell & Wilmer
In a significant development for Arizona’s business community and environmental policymakers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has paused its planned reclassification of Maricopa County from “Moderate” to “Serious” ozone nonattainment status pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This decision marks a shift in federal air policy — one that recognizes the unique challenges faced by regions like metro Phoenix, where environmental conditions beyond local control are often key contributors to air quality readings. The EPA’s move follows a series of meetings between EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Arizona elected officials, and business and civic leaders, including a recent roundtable in Phoenix convened by U.S. Senator Mark Kelly. In announcing the pause, Zeldin acknowledged the need for flexibility and fairness in the application of Clean Air Act standards, especially when emissions from other states, nations, and natural events significantly influence local air quality. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer, John Habib, Snell & Wilmer and Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com Mr. Habib may be contacted at jhabib@swlaw.com Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Delay Matters: Florida’s Fourth DCA Reverses Hurricane Irma Dismissal

June 08, 2026 — Andrea DeField, Machaella Reisman & Cary D. Steklof - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The mantra “delay, deny, defend” is frequently referenced in discussions of insurance claims handling, though insurers will invariably disavow these tactics. While it would be facially improper for an insurer to delay a coverage decision to gain a tactical advantage, empirical examples nonetheless exist. This very dynamic was addressed by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals when it handed policyholders a win in Hypoluxo Mariner’s Cay Condo. Assoc’n, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4D2024‑2250 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 1, 2026), reversing a trial court order dismissing a condominium association’s Hurricane Irma coverage lawsuit against its property insurer. Delay to Run the Statute of Limitations Following Hurricane Irma, a condominium association suffered roof and exterior envelope damage, reported an insurance claim, and submitted a sworn proof of loss to its property insurer in compliance with Florida Statute § 627.70132 (2020). The statute establishes a timeframe within which a policyholder must submit a claim for hurricane damage. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Machaella Reisman, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@hunton.com Ms. Reisman may be contacted at reismanm@hunton.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

EPA Expands PFAS Reporting Requirements with Addition of New Chemical to Toxics Release Inventory, Published by Law360

June 08, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) addition of sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) introduces new federal reporting requirements for businesses that manufacture, process, or use the chemical. Because reporting obligations apply retroactively to the start of the year, affected facilities must quickly evaluate their compliance and recordkeeping practices. In a recent Law360 article, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, explains why PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI, how the EPA’s public reporting system works, and which businesses may be affected by the new rule. The article also touches upon key compliance considerations, including supply chain reviews, reporting thresholds for chemicals of special concern, and preparation for public disclosure requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

We Won’t Permit That Excuse!

June 23, 2026 — Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocs
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit? But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation. The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison

June 02, 2026 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
1. Introduction As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years. The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

---

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

1. First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
2. The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
3. The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Lienor Dealing With “Show Cause” Summons by Condominium Unit Owner

September 01, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the statutory vehicles to shorten a construction lienor’s statute of limitations to foreclose on a construction lien is through a “show cause” summons that essentially requires the lienor to foreclose on the lien within 20 days from receipt of the “show cause” summons. This is a statutory procedure under Florida’s Lien Law in Fla. Stat. s. 713.21(4). If a lienor receives a “show cause” summons and lawsuit, the lienor should, without delay, counterclaim or file a separate lien foreclosure lawsuit within the 20-day period without exception. This is provided the lienor wants to move forward with its lien. If a lienor does not, the lien will be discharged of record. If you are a lienor and receive a “show cause” summons, please immediately consult with construction counsel that can best advise you and perfect your lien rights. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---