CROMWELL INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Court Revives Construction Defect Claims: Key Lessons for Managing Latent Defect Risk

January 21, 2026 — Spencer E. Dunn & Melissa Osio Martinez - Wood Smith Henning Berman
Construction projects often involve intricate designs, multiple stakeholders, and complex performance obligations. When problems surface years after completion, parties must navigate a difficult landscape that blends contract law, tort doctrines, and statutory deadlines. A recent decision from the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas provides meaningful guidance on how courts will evaluate latent construction defect claims, the applicability of the discovery rule, and the limits of the economic loss doctrine. In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., the court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the general contractor and project manager, reviving the owner's claims and offering important lessons for owners, contractors, and insurers facing construction defect disputes. Background of the Dispute Morningside Ministries operates senior living communities across Texas. In 2012, It contracted with Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd. (Koontz) to construct The Overlook, a significant expansion of Morningside's Menger Springs campus in Boerne. The contract required Koontz to build 100 new senior living units along with common areas and site improvements, and placed responsibility for construction quality, including the work of subcontractors, on Koontz. Reprinted courtesy of Spencer E. Dunn, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Melissa Osio Martinez, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Dunn may be contacted at sdunn@wshblaw.com Ms. Martinez may be contacted at mosiomartinez@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

---

Insured Successfully Moves to Dismiss Insurer’s Suit to Eliminate Duty to Defend

January 06, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer had a duty to defend and dismissed the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. I.C. Refrigeration Services Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221768 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025). Flory Construction, Inc. sued the project owner, Highbridge, asserting claims for (1) foreclosure on mechanics liens; (2) breach of contract; and other cliams. Flory agreed to furnish labor, materials and equipment for improvements to Highbridge’s properties. Flory alleges Highbridge failed to provide payment despite Flory completing “all requested contract work . . . except to the extent prevented by Highbridge.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Bridging the Information Gap of Alternative Delivery Methods on Public Projects

January 21, 2026 — Michael S. Blackwell - The Dispute Resolver
In almost all corners of the country, municipalities, counties, and states alike have historically employed a design-bid-build approach to public projects. While the delivery method lends itself easily to selecting the lowest bidder for both the design and construction phases of projects, it also excludes other, alternative methods that may be better suited for projects that require contractor involvement during the design phase, a phased approach to completion, or partnership between the public entity and private investment. But implementation of new delivery methods has posed a problem in some areas due to a lack of familiarity. This blog post proposes a simple solution. As early as the mid-late 1990s, changes in federal procurement laws allowed for the adoption of design-build, one option for alternative delivery, for public projects. Since that time, states, municipalities, and other public entities have followed suit. Today, you can find the use of design-build, progressive design-build, A + B, CM/GC, CMAR, and P3 just to name a few of the delivery methods that have been adopted in various states. These alternatives help provide options to public entities to find the right fit for their project. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Blackwell, Riess LeMieux, LLC
Mr. Blackwell may be contacted at mblackwell@rllaw.com

---

Elliott Backed Venture Sues Lloyds Over Avant Cladding, Times Reports

February 17, 2026 — Eamon Farhat - Bloomberg
Elliott Investment Management and British housing tycoon Jeff Fairburn, joint-venture partners in UK homebuilder Avant Homes Group, are suing Lloyds Banking Group Plc over who should pay to fix properties that fail to meet post-Grenfell fire-safety standards, the Times reported. Avant, which faces remediation costs of at least £107 million ($146 million) for potentially dangerous cladding, argues that Lloyds should shoulder part of the bill because most of the developments were built before 2014, when the homebuilder was under the bank’s ownership, the Times reported. Cladding has become a contentious issue in the UK following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, in which dozens died after flames spread rapidly through flammable exterior cladding on the West London high-rise, laying bare deep failures in Britain’s building safety regulations. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eamon Farhat, Bloomberg

---

Potential Gap in Workers Compensation Immunity Statutory Framework

June 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Workers compensation insurance is important. As an owner, you want to ensure the contractors you hire have workers compensation insurance. Assuming you hire a contractor that is statutorily exempt from workers compensation, you want to make sure, no exception, that any subcontractor that is hired has workers compensation insurance. (Regardless, you always want subcontractors to have workers compensation insurance.). In construction, the prime contractor serves as the “statutory employer” for purposes of workers compensation insurance. With workers compensation comes workers compensation immunity. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

White House Explores Opening Antitrust Probe on Homebuilders

February 10, 2026 — Patrick Clark & Leah Nylen - Bloomberg
Trump administration officials are exploring opening an antitrust investigation into US homebuilders as the White House sharpens its focus on tackling the country’s housing affordability crisis. The Department of Justice could open the probe in the coming weeks, according to people familiar with the discussions. No decision has been made and the administration may abandon the effort without launching an investigation, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing non-public information. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg and Leah Nylen, Bloomberg Read the full story...

---

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

---

New York Moves to Tighten Third-Party Practice: Key Changes to CPLR 1007

March 31, 2026 — Sophia L. Cahill - Sheppard
Effective April 18, 2026, the New York Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act, amending CPLR 1007—the statute that governs third-party practice. The amendment sharply limits when and how defendants can commence third-party actions, curbing the expansive discretion they previously enjoyed and targeting the late-stage impleaders that often upend case schedules. What Changes Before the AVOID Act was signed into law on December 19, 2025 (and subsequently modified by Chapter Amendments A9502 and S8809, signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026[1]), CPLR 1007 gave defendants broad latitude to implead “any person who is or may be liable” for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. CPLR 1007 specified no outside time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim; courts assessed only whether a defendant’s delay was undue—such as impleading months after the note of issue—and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the third-party action were not severed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sophia L. Cahill, Sheppard
Ms. Cahill may be contacted at scahill@sheppard.com

---