SPRINGBORO PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insured’s Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment

July 13, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment to dispose of the insured’s bad faith claim was unsuccessful. Page v. State Farm Lloyds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102293 (E.D. Texas March 18, 2026). Plaintiff insured alleged that hail and a windstorm caused damage to his property. The damage was reported to the defendant insurer. A claims adjuster inspected the property. Defendant then paid plaintiff $24,493.06, which was the total of the estimated damage minus depreciation and the deductible. 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 General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage

July 06, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026). Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage. The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Samuel Alhadeff Represents LGI Homes in Acquisition and Re-Entitlement of Maravilla Estates

July 06, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Temecula Partner Samuel Alhadeff recently represented LGI Homes in its acquisition and re-entitlement of Maravilla Estates, a 169-lot active adult community located in San Jacinto, California. The acquisition and re-entitlement of the project provide LGI Homes with the opportunity to deliver much-needed age-qualified housing in one of Riverside County's growing residential markets. The community includes a recorded final map and finished lots, as well as future development inventory and planned amenities, positioning the project for continued development and completion. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

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

---

Inaccurate Representations Can Lead to Differing Site Conditions Claim

May 26, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In the prior posting, I discussed a case dealing with a differing site condition. In that case, the owner did not have an affirmative duty to make a representation and there was no inaccurate representation made by the owner that misled the contractor. Well, what about when there is an inaccurate misrepresentation regarding the site? This was the circumstance in an older Florida case where a dredging contractor had a successful differing site conditions claim. See Jacksonville Port Authority v. Parkhill-Goodloe, Co., Inc., 362 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The government provided inaccurate information as to the lack of rock that would be encountered during the dredging that was relied on by the dredging contractor. But the government had “superior knowledge” that there was rock in an adjacent location based on a prior claim from a contractor, yet the government did not disclose the possibility that rock could be encountered. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Finding of No Coverage for Interior Leak

March 24, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying California law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that water damage caused by a leaking pipe over time was not covered under the insured’s homeowners’ policy. Mojica v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32405 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). A small hole, slightly larger than a pen tip in size, developed in a pressurized hot water pipe. The resulting leak lasted for nearly six days and released enough water to saturate and ruin all the subflooring and flooring in the insureds’ home. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Surety Requiring Collateral Security Under General Agreement of Indemnity

September 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In order to procure bonds (payment and performance bonds), you need to sign a General Agreement of Indemnity (referred to as the “GAI”) with the surety (bonding company). It does not matter the surety issuing the bonds, the terms and conditions in the General Agreement of Indemnity are largely consistent. These terms and conditions are one-sided written in favor of the surety. This is because bonds are not insurance. When a surety issues such bonds, it is doing so under the premise that it will get reimbursed every penny that it incurs relative to its exposure- whether incurred in attorney’s fees, consulting costs, or remediating a default or claim under the applicable bond. The General Agreement of Indemnity is one of the most powerful contracts in construction and is a contract that is not to be taken lightly. It provides the surety numerous rights in the event of a claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---