DELPHI INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Voids Out-of-State Forum and Choice of Law Clauses in Construction Contracts

March 17, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman - Snell & Wilmer
The Texas Legislature amended statutes impacting construction contracts for projects located in Texas to declare any forum selection clause or choice of law provision “void as against public policy,” and mandate venue for any litigation or arbitration shall be in the Texas county in which the work is performed. The parties may stipulate to a different venue only after the dispute arises. Forum selection clauses and choice of law provisions are common in construction contracts. Frequently, general contractors based in other jurisdictions require subcontractors to sign contracts designating the contractor’s preferred venue for any dispute. These contracts may also select the law of another state to govern the contract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com

---

Florida’s Proposed HB 255: A Quiet Shift That Could Reshape Condo Defect Liability

January 21, 2026 — Matt Maranges - ConsensusDocs
In Florida, developers and contractors work under strict clocks. Section 95.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, sets two firm deadlines for construction claims: a four-year statute of limitations and a seven-year statute of repose. Those timelines govern when an owner or condominium association may pursue claims for alleged defects. Once the repose period ends, the claim is barred regardless of when the problem surfaced. Condominium law complicates that scheme. Section 718.124 delays the start of the limitation and repose periods on association claims until control of the board shifts from the developer to the unit owners. The logic is simple: a developer-controlled board cannot be expected to sue the developer. The practical effect is more sweeping. If turnover occurs late in the life of a project, the repose period may remain tolled for years, extending exposure far beyond the seven years that apply everywhere else. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Maranges, Jones Walker
Mr. Maranges may be contacted at mmaranges@joneswalker.com

---

Insurer’s Late Notice Argument Fails Due to Lack of Prejudice

December 30, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court refused to dismiss the insured’s claim for hail damage based on late notice because the insurer failed to demonstrate it had suffered prejudice. Borene UMC v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210767 (W.D. Texas Oct. 27, 2025). Boerne UMC owned multiple buildings that were allegedly damaged during a hailstorm that occurred in May 2021. In August 2022, Boerne hired a contractor to inspect the roofs. The contractor found damage to several roofs and HVAC units and prepared an estimate for repair of over $700,000. Boerne submitted a claim to its insurer, Church Mutual on November 17, 2022. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Newark Team Obtains Appellate Ruling Affirming Summary Judgment for Lawyer and Firm in Professional Negligence Lawsuit

April 14, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Newark Partner Meredith Kaplan Stoma and Associate Anthony Doss recently secured a decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirming summary judgment for their clients, a lawyer and her firm, in a lawsuit alleging professional negligence in connection with the administration of a commercial loan. The circumstances giving rise to the lawsuit date back to September 2020, when the plaintiff was approached by members of a real estate investment company regarding a short-term loan opportunity whereby he would loan the company $200,000. The company provided the plaintiff with a “bridge loan package,” which stated that the requested funds would be held in the escrow account of their counsel and her firm (Lewis Brisbois’ clients), and returned to him with interest within six months once the company was “capitalized” by a senior lender. The company subsequently prepared two notes, each for $100,000, in connection with the agreement. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Contracting Chaos? How Mid-America v. US Department of Transportation is Upending DBE Certifications

December 02, 2025 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
Since the early 1980s, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs including the one implemented by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) have been in effect. The DBE program began under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and has been reauthorized by Congress in various bills over the years. Generally, these DBE programs have required that ten percent of federal highway construction funds be paid to small businesses controlled and owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” Certain minority and women owned businesses have been given a presumption of disadvantage to facilitate their participation in federally‑assisted DOT contracting. While any person may qualify as socially and economically disadvantaged regardless of their race or gender, certain racial groups and women are rebuttably presumed to be disadvantaged. All other applicants seeking DBE status who are not presumed disadvantaged on the basis of their racial or female status must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are socially and economically disadvantaged. Many states have enacted similar requirements governing state and local projects. Recently, the presumption of disadvantaged status has come under attack in Mid‑America Milling Company v. U.S. Department of Transportation[i] pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The results of Mid-America represents a drastic change to the DOT’s DBE program for federal DOT contracting. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---

Quick Note: If You Want to Recover Attorney’s Fees In a Contractual Dispute, Include a Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees Provision

January 21, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you want the ability to recover attorney’s fees in the event of a contractual dispute, include a prevailing party attorney’s fees. Negotiate this point on the front end. Not doing so will hinder your ability to make the argument that you should be entitled to attorney’s fees due to a breach of the contract. In a recent case, the prevailing party relied on an indemnification provision to create the argument for attorney’s fees even though the action had NOTHING to do with indemnity. This was shot down on appeal as a party can’t use an indemnification provision to create that attorney’s fees argument UNLESS the provision is expressly clear on this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Va. Contractor Fined for Alleged DC Wage and Classification Violations

January 06, 2026 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
A Virginia contractor will pay $725,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the District of Columbia’s wage and hour laws on more than a dozen public housing projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---