CONTINENTAL DIVIDE NEW MEXICO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Over 50 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 7th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

September 01, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
56 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 26 offices have been named to the 7th edition of “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.” Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition! You can see the full list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 33rd edition of The Best Lawyers in America here. Akron, OH

• Partner Meleah M. Skillern - Commercial Litigation

Atlanta, GA

• Partner Catherine Crawley - Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; and Transportation Law
• Associate Davis Lackey - Insurance Law; and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Hidden Risks Behind Today’s Stadium Construction Boom

July 20, 2026 — Thomas Strong, Andrew Canning & Marc Gnesin - Construction Executive
After a decade-plus lull, professional sports leagues, universities and municipalities are once again spending heavily on new stadiums and major renovations. In the NFL alone, multiple marquee projects are underway or planned, representing more than $10 billion in facilities and mixed-use entertainment districts, rivaling or exceeding the scale of development during the last stadium-build cycle of the early 2000s. Beneath the excitement of architectural ambition and civic pride lies a risk landscape that has fundamentally changed since the last wave of stadium construction. Teams, cities and contractors that rely on outdated assumptions may find themselves exposed to cost overruns, schedule delays and liabilities that are far more difficult to unwind once construction is underway. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.

September 01, 2026 — ACEC Research Institute
WASHINGTON (August 19, 2026) – The ACEC Research Institute today released Leading Through AI Risk: The Enterprise Framework for Engineering Firm Leaders, a new study finding that the most significant risks artificial intelligence poses to engineering firms are organizational rather than technological, and that firms treating AI as an IT initiative are managing the wrong issue. The report, part of the Institute’s yearslong Firm of the Future initiative, combines an extensive literature review with in-depth interviews of 21 leaders drawn from engineering firms, public infrastructure owners, technology vendors, insurance and legal professionals, licensing and regulatory agencies, and AI consultants. The report groups AI risk into eight interconnected domains:

• technical reliability and model risk
• professional liability and standard of care risk
• data governance, privacy, and intellectual property risk
• organizational and workforce risk
• ethical, regulatory, and reputational risk
• operational and cybersecurity risk
• financial and business model risk
• strategic leadership and enterprise governance risk

The last serves as the integrating domain through which firms coordinate responsible AI adoption enterprise wide. The report stresses that firms do not experience these risks one at a time. Weak oversight may create legal liability. Workforce gaps may affect quality assurance. “Understanding these interactions,” the study notes, “is often more important than understanding individual risks independently.” About the ACEC Research Institute The ACEC Research Institute is the independent research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Its mission is to fund and deliver research to equip the engineering industry with actionable intelligence on the issues critical to its success. Learn more at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.

---

HDR Agreed to $12M Settlement With Miami Bridge Design-Build Team

May 12, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
HDR last year agreed to pay $12 million to the design-build construction contractor Archer Western-de Moya Group to settle its claims that the engineer had incompletely designed and under-designed Miami's new Signature Bridge when the joint venture committed to a fixed price prior to construction in 2018. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Two Important Points Regarding the Miller Act

September 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller Act case, U.S. f/u/b/o Boundless Management Outsourcing Group, LLC v. Endurance Assurance Corp, 2026 WL 2241491 (D. Puerto Rico 2026), confirms two important points when it comes to the Miller Act. In this case, a subcontractor pursued a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit more than one year after its work was finished. The subcontractor also asserted a claim against the federal government. The lawsuit was dismissed. Below are two takeaway points to consider if you are dealing with a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. First, as it relates the claim against the federal government, the federal district court followed authority that held that the Miller Act does NOT include a waiver of sovereign immunity against the federal government. “[T]he Court does not identify any clear language in the Miller Act expressly waiving the United States or its agencies’ sovereign immunity.” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *3. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

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

---

Key Person Provisions in Construction Contracts: Because People, Not Companies, Build Projects

October 27, 2026 — Nate Simon - Construction Executive
In construction, the person running your job matters: the project manager who sat in your preconstruction meetings, who understands the phasing, who knows why the MEP coordination sequence was set up the way it was, who has relationships with your team and the owner’s team. That person is not interchangeable. And if they disappear six weeks into the job and get replaced by someone who’s never read the drawings, you have a problem. This happens all the time. A contractor or consultant sells the A-team—the experienced project manager; the sharp superintendent; the people who won the job—during the proposal and interview. Then, once the contract is signed, those people quietly get moved to a larger project, not out of anything nefarious, but usually out of a necessity. A fire happens on another project and they are needed to put it out. By the time you realize those working on your project aren’t the ones you originally signed on, you’re three months in and the damage is already underway. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Simon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Simon may be contacted at nate@simonlawky.com

---

From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight

October 06, 2026 — Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs. This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---