Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

The Benefits of Incorporating AI Into the Construction Lifecycle

December 23, 2024 — Ian Warner - Construction Executive
Interest in artificial intelligence has been spreading like wildfire over the past few years. AI is not a new term for Trimble, which has been capturing and leveraging construction data for decades. From hardware to software, the field to the office or among stakeholders, harnessing and making meaning out of data is the crux of Trimble’s business. Generative AI is simply a new set of tools that provide a richer narrative around data, making it more insightful and actionable. As a company that helps connect stakeholders across the entire construction lifecycle—design, construction and operations/ maintenance—AI has been woven in and leveraged across a number of Trimble solutions to help contractors do more with less, while also giving them greater decision-making power and the ability to focus on other key challenges. While the use cases for AI are diverse and ever-changing, below are a few key areas where Trimble has doubled down on AI, with the goal of making contractors’ jobs less cumbersome and repetitive, safer and more capable of being upskilled—efforts which will only continue to grow in the coming years. Reprinted courtesy of Ian Warner, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

November 25, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the insured's complaint requesting coverage for hail damage and a claim for bad faith. Rodriquez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160007 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024). Mr. Rodriquez sought coverage under his homeowners policy after a hail and wind storm damaged his roof. After inspection, State Farm agreed that some minimal loss caused by hail was covered, but determined that the covered loss was less than the amount of the deductible. State Farm further determined that any hail damage to the roof was excluded by an endorsement, Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Caused by Hail. State Farm also determined that some damage was caused by previous faulty workmanship or wear and tear, both of which were excluded from coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Decision from Hawaii Supreme Court Amplifies Reasoning for its Prior Order in Maui Fire Cases

March 25, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Following its order dated February 10, 2025, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its full opinion, explaining its answers to the reserved questions addressed in the order. In the Matter of the Petition for the Coordination of Maui Fire Cases, Haw Sup. Ct., SCRQ-24-0000602 (March 17, 2025) [Prior post on order here]. The global settlement reached by the individual and class plaintiffs and defendants required, as a condition precedent, either a release by insurance carriers of all subrogation claims against the defendants, or a final, unappealable order and judgment that the insurers' exclusive remedy for all subrogation claims would be a lien against the settlement under Haw. Rev. Stat. 663-10. Mediation between the individual action plaintiffs, consolidated class plaintiffs, defendants, and subrogation insurers resulted in a settlement term sheet signed by all parties except the subrogation insurers. The term sheet contemplated a global settlement that resolved all claims against the defendants. The term sheet also required an agreement or judgment resolving the subrogating insurers' claims against the defendants as a condition precedent to the proposed settlement. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Dispute Over Amount Insured Owes Public Adjuster Resolved

January 14, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court addressed a dispute over fees that the insureds allegedly owed the public adjuster. Public' Adjuster's, LLC v. Mark Gottesdiener & Co., et al., 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2352 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 6. 2024). The insureds owned an apartment building that was substantially damaged by a fire. The building was insured by Quincy Mutual Group. The insureds signed a Public Adjuster Employment Contract with The Public's Adjuster, LLC (Adjuster). The contract authorized Adjuster to negotiate the reimbursable damages with Quincy on the insureds' behalf. Adjuster was to recover 8 1/2% of any amounts received by the insureds. Because of the extent of the fire damage, the work of negotiating a settlement with Quincy proved to be complex. Adjuster meticulously prepared several detained written estimates to by submitted to Quincy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insurance and Reconstruction: A Guide for Property Owners Facing Wildfire Aftermath and Other Disasters

February 04, 2025 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
“This is the worst-case scenario to prepare for,” said Kristan Lund, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, when talking about the recent wildfires in Los Angeles and the subsequent heavy rainfall. The aftermath of debris, mudslides and flooding has left a path of devastation, destroying both commercial and residential properties, displacing thousands of residents, and making the reconstruction efforts challenging. The process of disaster recovery extends beyond immediate relief efforts; it involves the intricate planning, permitting, and execution of reconstruction projects. Insurance Challenges and Coverage Issues One of the primary concerns for affected property owners is whether their insurance policies cover post-fire mudslides and flooding. Typically, standard homeowners’ insurance and commercial property policies exclude coverage for floods and earth movement. However, under California’s “efficient proximate cause” doctrine, policyholders may still have a valid claim if the primary cause of the flooding or mudslide is determined to be the wildfire. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

Admissions In Answers to Construction Lawsuits Matter

May 19, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Ogden v. Defelice, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D937d (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), is a construction case that doesn’t talk about construction issues. Go figure. Nonetheless, it does touch upon two worthy considerations: (i) admissions in answers to lawsuits; and (ii) fictitious names. Both issues apply to construction disputes. In this case, plaintiff sued a person d/b/a (doing business as) a fictitious company that focuses on kitchen countertops. After an amended complaint, the person filed an answer to the lawsuit that admitted the allegation regarding him doing business as a fictitious company. The case proceeded to a bench trial and the person got a judgment entered against him. The person later tried to vacate the judgment arguing that the judgment never should have been entered against him, but another company. This argument was rejected: Admissions in pleadings “are accepted as facts without the necessity of supporting evidence. Phrased differently, a pleading admission has “ ‘the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.’” It “release[s] the opposing party from its burden to prove” that fact. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

(Don’t) Go Fish

May 12, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana faced significant discovery challenges in a complex trade secrets dispute initiated by a general contractor against several defendants, including former employees of the general contractor. The contractor alleged that defendants misappropriated confidential customer lists, pricing strategies, and business plans in order to unfairly compete against the contractor. The contractor sought and was granted immediate injunctive relief, and, as the case progressed, the court implemented a protective order and a forensic protocol to manage the exchange and examination of the alleged misappropriated information. Despite these measures, discovery quickly became contentious. One critical ruling on a motion to compel involved defendants’ suggestions that the contractor had not adequately protected trade secrets -- and defendants’ request for information from the contractor on the topic. The court found no substantial evidence of improper disclosures and ruled that requiring a contractor to review all its documents for potential external disclosures was disproportionate – without tangible evidence of such actions (the court emphasizing the necessity of specificity in discovery requests to avoid undue burdens). In connection therewith, the court also examined the contractor’s efforts to protect its trade secrets, which the court found adequate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

December 23, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. This case involved a water loss to the Pennsylvania residence of Mikyung Kim and her husband Adrian Kim (collectively, the Kims) that was discovered in April 2021. An investigation revealed that the water loss originated from the failure of a bidet for a toilet in the second-floor bathroom. The Kims alleged that defendant, Coway USA, Inc. (Coway), sold the bidet and installed it around 2010. An employee of the plaintiff’s liability expert, a materials engineer, opined that a T-connector—a plastic valve that regulates the flow of water to and through the bidet—failed due to overtightening of the connector during the manufacturing process. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES