Norristown Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Directory

“The Superintendent Told Us to Do It:” Why Verbal Approval May Not Be Enough

June 02, 2026 — Andrew Lintner - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In construction defect litigation, one scenario appears repeatedly: a subcontractor installs work in a manner that differs from the plans, specifications, manufacturer instructions, or industry standards after being verbally directed to do so by the general contractor, superintendent, architect, or owner’s representative. At the time, the decision may seem minor. The project is moving quickly, the field team wants to maintain progress, and nobody wants to stop working over what appears to be a small issue. The subcontractor may trust the superintendent or project manager and assume the conversation will be remembered later if questions arise. Years later, however, when the project experiences problems, the people involved may deny the conversation occurred, remember it differently, or simply no longer remember the project. Without written documentation, the subcontractor can find itself defending claims for defective work, even though it performed the installation exactly as directed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Lintner, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Lintner may be contacted at alintner@hhmrlaw.com

Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

August 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com

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...

Flatiron Said Disputed Concrete Mix Cost Millions on Large Caltrans Project

June 22, 2026 — Elaine Silver & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
For awhile in 2023, part of the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Fix 50 HOV lane and resurfacing project in Sacramento itself needed to be fixed. Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record and Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

July 13, 2026 — Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction Seyt
Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

CEO: Power Isn’t the Only Electrical Challenge for AI Data Centers

April 14, 2026 — Francesco "Frio" Iorio - Engineering News-Record
Everyone knows that data centers are voracious consumers of electricity. In fact, the U.S. is currently scrambling to meet unprecedented levels of power demand not seen since the early days of electrification and the widespread adoption of air conditioning. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Francesco "Frio" Iorio, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle

July 13, 2026 — Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis Brisbois
The Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways Act 932:

Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.

Reprinted courtesy of Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/18/25) – Data Center Frenzy, China’s Expanding REIT Market and Tariff-Affected Construction Costs

March 31, 2026 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, relistings reached highest total in a decade, Florida State Legislature passes bill to increase the state’s housing supply, data center construction adapts to changes and more!

The data center construction frenzy and a new, potentially larger highway bill were top of mind for builders during the latest round of contractor earnings calls and financial reports. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
Tariffs and associated policy uncertainty have increased construction costs and delayed leasing and investment choices. (J.P. Morgan)
Relistings hit the highest January figure since Redfin began tracking this metric a decade ago. (Diana Olick, CNBC).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

NORRISTOWN PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES