Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

Quick Note: Procure Worker’s Compensation in the Name of Your Company If You Are a General Contractor

July 15, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a general contractor (or the contractor responsible for hiring subcontractors), please make sure to procure a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance policy. Also, don’t think you are “fully covered” if you have worker’s compensation through a professional employer’s organization, otherwise known as a PEO. If you go with a PEO, or are statutorily exempt from worker’s compensation, then you need to make sure ALL of the subcontractors you hire have worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance. No exception. Ever. The risk is much greater than any reward. In construction under Florida law, the general contractor is deemed the “statutory employer” for purposes of worker’s compensation. This means that if a subcontractor does not have worker’s compensation, then the general contractor’s worker’s compensation policy is required to cover injuries. So, if a person under a subcontractor gets hurt, and the subcontractor does not have worker’s compensation insurance, then the general contractor is deemed the statutory employer for purposes of worker’s compensation. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2026 Best Law Firms®

December 02, 2025 — Payne & Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP has been recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms.” This distinction reflects the firm’s commitment to professional excellence and its strong reputation among clients and peers in the legal community. Payne & Fears has been ranked in the following practice areas: Metropolitan Tier 1 Orange County

Commercial Litigation
Employment Law - Management
Insurance Law
Labor Law - Management
Litigation - Labor and Employment
Litigation - Real Estate

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Candace Dickson Recognized as “Up & Coming Lawyer” by The Indiana Lawyer

June 16, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Northwest Indiana (June 3, 2025) – Northwest Indiana Associate Candace C. Dickson was recently honored by The Indiana Lawyer as an “Up & Coming Lawyer” at the organization’s “Leadership in Law” awards ceremony. According to the publication, this year’s honorees include 37 talented attorneys who “represent the strength and the future of Indiana’s legal profession.” When asked why she chose law as a career, Mrs. Dickson said “I decided to enter the legal profession so that I could assist my community with understanding the law. Many of them do not have access to an attorney. I wanted to fill that gap for individuals who looked like me and were from my hometown.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Texas Legislative Update: Breaking Down the New Texas Laws Impacting Construction

September 03, 2025 — Matthew S.C. Moore & Quinn Kuriger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The Texas Legislature concluded its Regular Session and quickly moved into a Special Session. While political gridlock may dominate headlines at the State Capitol, lawmakers enacted legislation with significant implications for the construction sector. This update highlights the most important legislative developments from the 89th Regular Legislative Session. The 89th Regular Session convened from January 14th through June 2, 2025, producing several legislative reforms affecting the construction industry. Of 11,277 bills filed, the Legislature enacted 1,155 measures, with Governor Abbott vetoing 28 bills by the June 22, 2025 deadline. Although the Legislature has since entered Special Sessions, no agenda items currently under consideration are expected to directly impact the construction industry. The following sections review key legislation from the Regular Session, focusing on those bills most relevant to the construction industry. Topics include restrictions on new rules on right to repair accrual dates, prompt payment requirements for public works projects, changes to trust fund assignment rights, lien law deadline reforms, venue provisions for construction contracts, contracting integrity in K-12 and higher education, expanded liability protections for land surveyors, municipal regulation of mixed-use and multifamily projects, bonding limitations on pipelines, updated building energy codes, LNG permitting reforms, and environmental standards for construction materials facilities. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew S.C. Moore, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Quinn Kuriger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moore may be contacted at mmoore@pecklaw.com Mr. Kuriger may be contacted at qkuriger@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Right of a Party to Oppose Summary Judgment Motions - Even Without Cross-Claims

August 06, 2025 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside) in RND Contractors, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) issued a significant published decision. The California Court of Appeal addressed a previously unsettled question: can a co-defendant oppose another defendant’s motion for summary judgment when the plaintiff does not oppose it and no cross-claims exist between the defendants? The Court answered yes, holding that a party may oppose a motion for summary judgment if it is adverse to the moving party—even in the absence of cross-claims. The case arose from a construction site collapse that resulted in injury for one worker and the death of another. The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including the structural engineer and the steel framing contractor. The plaintiffs later declined to oppose the engineer’s summary judgment motion. However, the steel framing contractor and another defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the engineer’s negligent design contributed to the collapse. The trial court refused to consider their opposition, ruling that the two defendants lacked standing without a cross-claim against the structural engineer, and granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding this refusal was error. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Forget Fifth Graders - Are You Smarter Than a CEO?

December 02, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - JD Supra
The Supreme Court of South Dakota says that (in certain circumstances) you need to be. That court wrangled with the evidentiary requirements for professional negligence and breach of contract claims arising from the construction of a clinical research facility in Brookings, South Dakota. The general contractor on the project alleged defects in the design and installation of the HVAC system and suspended ceiling, resulting in contamination and operational failures. The general contractor sued the architect, engineers, and contractors, asserting breach of contract and implied warranties. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps Dunbar
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Cardinal Change Examines the Entire, Factual Undertaking

June 16, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent matter with the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals discusses a cardinal change theory of liability.

A cardinal change “occurs when the government effects an alteration in the work so drastic that it effectively requires the contractor to perform duties materially different from those originally bargained for.” … A cardinal change can occur even when there is no change in the final product because “it is the entire undertaking of the contractor, rather than the product, to which we look.”

Boyd Atlanta Rhodes, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7753, 2025 WL 1202011 (CBCA 2025) (citations omitted).

In this matter, a lessor was pursuing additional compensation from the government (as lessee) due to delays (more than 400 days) in the government’s acceptance of its lease term. The lease provided that the contracting officer could, at any time, make direct changes to tenant improvements, etc., prior to the lease term commencing. There were more than 400 days of delay that resulted in the government’s delay in accepting the lease term. The lessor claimed the government was responsible for the delay and sought lost rental income under the argument of cardinal change. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Dispositive Motions in AAA Construction Arbitration: Why You Should Think Twice

September 30, 2025 — Lisa Colon - The Dispute Resolver
When involved in a construction arbitration under the AAA rules, the urge to file a dispositive motion can be strong. After all, wouldn't it be beneficial to eliminate your opponent's case early and save the time and expense of a full hearing? However, before drafting that motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, take a moment to consider if it's truly the best strategic choice. The AAA's Measured Approach to Dispositive Motions The AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules adopt a notably cautious stance toward dispositive motions. Rule R-34 states that arbitrators may allow such motions "upon prior written application," but only after evaluating "the time and cost associated with the briefing of a dispositive motion." The rule explicitly mandates that arbitrators consider whether permitting the motion aligns with "the goal of achieving an efficient and economical resolution of the dispute." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Colon, Saul Ewing LLP
Ms. Colon may be contacted at lisa.colon@saul.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES