Rogersville Alabama Construction Expert Witness Directory

Understanding the EPA’s Latest Proposed Drinking Water Contaminant Monitoring Rule, Published in Law360

September 01, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) represents another step in the federal government’s ongoing effort to identify and evaluate emerging contaminants in drinking water. The proposal would require certain public water systems to monitor and report on 30 unregulated drinking water contaminants from 2028 through 2030, while generating occurrence data that could inform future regulation and affect environmental, commercial, litigation and risk assessments. In an article published by Law360, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, analyzes the scope and practical implications of UCMR 6, including the contaminants selected, the proposed monitoring requirements for public water systems, and the EPA’s continued focus on PFAS and related organofluorine compounds. The article also touches upon the potential significance of publicly available monitoring data for businesses and property stakeholders. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Nordics Are Europe’s Next Data Center Hub

October 05, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
On September 9, 2026, Google announced its largest single investment in Europe. The company commits at least €13 billion to Finnish data centers and energy infrastructure in 2027 and 2028, expanding the existing Hamina campus and adding three new sites in Kajaani, Muhos, and Vaala. For the construction sector, this is great news: thousands of hectares, dozens of buildings, and a construction program that will extend well beyond the two-year investment window. Four Sites, One Regional Cluster Google is not a newcomer in Finland. Back in 2009, it converted a former paper mill in Hamina into a seawater-cooled data center. It has invested around €4.5 billion there over 15 years, and the site’s waste heat already feeds Hamina’s district heating network. The new program shifts the center of gravity north, to the border of North Ostrobothnia and Kainuu. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Miller Act Payment Bond Claim “No Nos!”

October 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent federal district court opinion, Sauer Construction, LLC v. United Structures of Georgia, LLC, 2026 WL 2522849 (M.D.Fla. 2026), addressed two worthy considerations when it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim. And, when I am talking about considerations, I am really talking about “no-nos.” These are things you don’t do. First, don’t file an untimely Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Make sure, as a claimant, you file that lawsuit within one year from your final furnishing. In this case, the subcontractor claimant did not and tried to argue around the statute of limitations with an equitable tolling argument, i.e., that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled to accommodate the late filing of the lawsuit. Guess what? The subcontractor was not successful. You are fighting an uphill (losing) battle when arguing equitable tolling because “traditional equitable tolling principles require that the claimant demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment.” Sauer Construction, supra. This means you need ultra-persuasive evidence to support such equitable tolling principles. Actually, having this evidence is doubtful. Thus, timely file the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason not to. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Drawing Changed. Did You Catch It? A Hard Lesson for Contractors About Revised Plans

November 09, 2026 — Matthew J. Devries - Best Practices Construction Law Blog
Every contractor has seen it. A revised drawing hits your inbox. You open the sheet, look for the clouds, figure out what changed, and move on. But what if something changed outside the cloud? That seemingly simple question became a very expensive problem in Young Contracting/SE, Inc. v. Pitt Excavating, LLC, (Oct. 30, 2026), a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision involving a general contractor and its excavation subcontractor. The subcontract required Pitt to perform its work in accordance with the project drawings and specifications, “as amended from time to time.” During the project, Young sent Pitt a revised drawing. Pitt’s owner testified that his practice was to look at the clouded areas because he understood those areas to identify what had changed. He explained that he presumed the rest of the drawing remained the same. Guess what? That assumption did not work out well. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew J. Devries, Buchalter
Mr. Devries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law

June 29, 2026 — Brenda Radmacher - The Construction Seyt
Daily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties. The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@seyfarth.com

Federal Court Finds that Master Agreement Bestows Additional Insured Coverage

November 09, 2026 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case Triborough Scaffolding & Hoisting Servs. v. Sw. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226876, Judge P. Kevin Castel, who was also operating as finder of fact, held that a subcontractor master agreement covered a subcontractor’s work at a specific project, such that an obligation to name the prime contractor Triborough as well as the undefined Owner, bestowed additional insured coverage to Triborough and the Owner under policies issued to the subcontractor. The agreement at issue was dated December 15-16, 2017 and the accident at issue occurred in 2018. The trial evidence includes testimony from both Triborough and the subcontractor that the agreement was intended to apply annually, and the subcontractor could not recall the parties ever signing a project-specific agreement. Further, Triborough assigned work to the subcontractor by telephone call or texts on several projects, and without a project-specific contract. Moreover, no other operative indemnity or insurance agreement between Triborough and the subcontractor, other than a backdated agreement that was not applicable. Finally, the court did not find plausible that the subcontractor would enter into an agreement meant only to cover the final two weeks of 2017, such that the agreement extended into work occurring in 2018. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment

June 15, 2026 — Jennifer Kretschmann & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis Brisbois
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities. The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

Your AI Tool Could Be Your Next Breach of Contract

October 20, 2026 — Laurie Choi & Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer
Like many industries, the construction industry is rapidly adopting artificial intelligence. AI-powered tools now help construction teams estimate costs, transcribe meetings, summarize RFIs, model schedules, and manage project documents faster than ever before. But amid this rush toward efficiency, a serious risk hides in plain sight: every time project documents are uploaded into a third-party AI tool, contractual confidentiality obligations may be implicated — or outright breached — exposing companies to potentially substantial and uncapped liability. General contractors often face strict confidentiality and nondisclosure obligations, whether under the prime construction contract or a separate NDA. This is especially true for complex projects or those involving proprietary technology — such as data centers, medical or scientific facilities, and energy generation and storage facilities. These confidentiality clauses typically define “confidential information” broadly to encompass all non-public information provided for the project, including plans, specifications, pricing, schedules, RFPs, and even the contract terms themselves. These confidentiality obligations almost always flow down to subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Laurie Choi, Snell & Wilmer and Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Choi may be contacted at lchoi@swlaw.com Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com Read the full story...

ROGERSVILLE ALABAMA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES