Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

Congratulations to Newport Beach Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Associate Therese M. Ellis for Securing a Dismissal on a Premises Liability and Negligence Case!

March 18, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Tyler D. Offenhauser and Therese M. Ellis forced adverse counsel to dismiss their Cross-complaint by filing a pro-active Motion for Summary Judgment involving a premises liability and negligence case. In this case, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendant HOA alleging a slip and fall accident as a result of slipping on a pile of leaves and debris on the sidewalk at the subject property. The property was owned and managed by the Defendant HOA. The Defendant HOA filed an Answer and Cross-complaint against BWB&O’s client for Comparative Negligence, Implied Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief. Through meticulous preparation, thorough research, and strategic advocacy, Therese Ellis prepared and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the client had no duty to perform landscaping services on the date of loss, had no notice of any dangerous condition, and that Plaintiff assumed the risk of such condition. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

December 03, 2024 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
It is instructive to review the Supreme Court’s record in its most recent term, concentrating on regulatory and administrative law cases, which are usually back-burner issues. But not this term. The Supreme Court began the current term on October 7, 2024. The Court has already chosen many cases to review in the new term, and it promises to be as interesting as the 2023 term, which produced several significant rulings affecting regulatory and administrative law, chiefly the Loper Bright Enterprises ruling. Loper Bright overturned the Court’s landmark administrative law ruling of Chevron, USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Background to Loper Bright In 1984, the Supreme Court decided Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council. (See 467 U.S. 839 (1984).) The unanimous decision, written by Justice Stevens, reversed then-D.C. Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ruling that set aside EPA’s Clean Air Act “bubble policy,” which was intended to provide regulatory relief from certain EPA permitting requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Court Invalidates Project Labor Agreement Mandate on Federal Construction Projects

February 25, 2025 — Brandon M. Wilsey - ConsensusDocs
In a decision published on January 21, 2025, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims struck down the Biden administration’s policy requiring Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on large-scale construction projects. Signed by President Biden in February 2022, Executive Order (EO) 14063 mandates PLAs on all federal construction projects exceeding $35 million. In the consolidated bid protest of MVL USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, Case No. 24-1057, the Court held that federal agencies’ implementation of the EO violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) by restricting open competition, rendering the requirement “arbitrary and capricious.” Although this decision is a significant victory for the protestors, its direct impact is limited for the moment. The PLA mandate has not been rescinded and remains in effect for large-scale construction procurements that were not part of this consolidated protest. The decision, however, likely precedes the mandate’s imminent demise. Many industry insiders, including the Build America Local Coalition, have urged the new Trump administration to scrap the mandate. The Trump administration has signaled that it is sympathetic to these requests, and the President, of course, can rescind the mandate with the stroke of his pen. But unless or until President Trump issues a new EO, the Court’s decision signals that PLA mandates will face heightened scrutiny and will require agencies to carefully justify mandates to avoid similar legal challenges. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brandon M. Wilsey, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP
Mr. Wilsey may be contacted at bwilsey@watttieder.com

A Good Read on Fraud versus Contract

April 15, 2025 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the interwoven issues of fraud, contract, and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) on several occasions. In most cases, the three simply don’t mix, acting more like oil and water than parallel causes of action. There are exceptions however so these three are always worth exploring in most (particularly residential) construction matters. A recent case out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals lays out a good roadmap for a properly pled, and properly tried in this case, VCPA, fraud, and contract matter. That case is Harrell v. Deluca and I recommend it to your reading. In Harrell, the Court considered a case where the Harrells entered into a residential sales contract to purchase property from DeLuca. After that sales contract, the parties entered into an addendum for a list of improvements that DeLuca was to make to the property as part of the sale. After that, the parties entered into a construction contract for the completion of certain uncompleted improvements by August 15, 2019. Needless to say (or this wouldn’t be a blog post at a construction law blog) things did not go well and the Harrells sued Deluca for fraud, constructive fraud, breach of contract, and violation of the VCPA. Unsurprisingly, and after a 9-day bench trial, the district court found in DeLuca’s favor on the fraud claims (actual and constructive) and the VCPA claim. It found for the Harrells on the breach of contract claim and awarded $181,762.87. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Speak Now or Forever Sign That Release – Part 1

March 10, 2025 — Gus Sara & Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
This episode of the Subro Sessions podcast, the first of a two-part series entitled: “Speak Now or Forever Sign That Release - Part 1,” is hosted by Gus Sara and Lian Skaf, Partners. This episode discusses the topic of subrogation settlement releases including guidance for the parties that draft the releases, obstacles that subrogation professionals typically run into, inclusion of the insured as a signatory and suggestions on specific language to use in the settlement process. Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP and Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

Seyfarth’s Construction and Government Contracts Teams Named 2024 Practice Groups of the Year by Law360

February 19, 2025 — Seyfarth Shaw LLP - The Construction Seyt
We are thrilled to share that Seyfarth’s Construction and Government Contracts practices were chosen by Law360 as 2024 Practice Groups of the Year. This special recognition spotlights the attorney teams “behind litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry this past year.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Construction Projects and Subrogation: Timing is Everything

April 01, 2025 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Strategist
In American Fam. Ins. Co. v. NB Elec., Inc., No. A24-0377, 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 12, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota (Court of Appeals) considered whether an insurer’s subrogation action was time barred under Minnesota’s two-year statute of limitations period. At issue was whether the statute of limitations began to run when the insured homeowner terminated the general contractor or when construction, with a new general contractor, was complete. Because the construction project did not terminate upon the replacement of the general contractor, the Court of Appeals found that the claims were not time-barred. In this case, the insured homeowner hired a general contractor for a home remodeling project in February 2020. The general contractor subsequently hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical work for the project. A fire damaged the home during construction in July 2020. The homeowner terminated the original general contractor in April 2021 and shortly thereafter hired a new general contractor to complete the home remodeling project. The work was substantially completed in July 2021. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Eight Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2025 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2025 — Payne & Fears LLP
We’re proud to congratulate eight dedicated Payne & Fears attorneys recognized as 2025 Southern California Super Lawyers® for their excellence across various practice areas. Their commitment to delivering exceptional legal service continues to earn industry recognition. Employment & Labor Jeff Brown Dan Fears Business Litigation Dan Livingston Ben Nix Tom Vincent Employment Litigation: Defense Andrew Haeffele Amy Patton Insurance Coverage Scott Thomas Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES