Barry County Michigan Construction Expert Witness Directory

Micromobility in Smart Cities: Keeping the Wheels in Motion

May 26, 2026 — James P. Bobotek - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Mobility is the lifeblood of any city. How people are able to travel in, out and within a metropolitan area is vital to its citizens, businesses, supply chains and social services. And as U.S. cities have expanded in size and population density, the strategies for addressing mobility have evolved. Many have taken different approaches to public transit, and each city boasts a dense tapestry of roadways, walking paths and various parking options. But as cities continue to reexamine infrastructure strategies through smart city technology, a new field of transportation has emerged—micromobility. Designed for short-distance travel using lightweight vehicles (bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.), the industry’s global net worth has grown exponentially in recent years to the tune of hundreds of billions, with one forecast predicting it could reach $340 billion by 2030. Micromobility also finds itself at the forefront of various smart city technological improvements. Geofencing has been implemented in U.S. cities to determine where micromobility vehicles can operate, control speed limits, and park utilizing the vehicles’ GPS location. Internet of Things (IoT) technologies (satellite-based location receivers, cloud communication, internet links, etc.) have improved vehicle lifespans by keeping track of when vehicles require service and prevent vandalism and theft. Data collected from vehicles’ location tracking is routinely used for urban planning and smart city development. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury
Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com

No Bad Faith Despite Insurer’s Appraisal Award Exceeding Initial Payment

August 03, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding no bad faith despite the appraisal award exceeding the amount the insurer initially paid. Jazi Kat 4659 Rockridge LLC, et al. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., et al., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105634 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2026). Plaintiffs sued Travelers for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that Travelers failed to pay money plaintiffs were owed under the policy. Plaintiffs held a commercial property policy for two properties. A fire destroyed one of the properties. Travelers adjusted the claim and issued two payments. Plaintiffs disagreed with the amount of the payments and demanded an appraisal. Travelers agreed to the appraisal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Alert: Fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment Defense Applies to Payment Bond Claims

April 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under Florida’s Lien Law, there’s an affirmative defense or affirmative claim known as a “fraudulent lien.” The fraudulent lien defense or claim is set out in Florida Statute s. 713.31. This defense also extends to payment bond claims, whether under a private statutory payment bond (Florida Statute s. 713.23) or a public payment bond (Florida Statute s. 255.05), as it pertains to the notice of nonpayment. A notice of nonpayment needs to be served within 90 days from final furnishing to preserve a claimant’s rights against the bond. However, there really has not been a case, until now, that discusses a “fraudulent notice of nonpayment.” In K&M Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brown Electrical Solutions, LLC, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D672a (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), a prime contractor and surety prevailed at the trial level on their fraudulent notice of nonpayment defense based on a supplier’s notice of nonpayment and action against a public payment bond (under Florida Statute s. 255.05). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI

June 08, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit. While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI. Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/8/26) – Data Centers Negotiate Flexibility for Speed, Hotel Deal Activities Focus on Luxury, and DC Sues Apartment Owners

July 20, 2026 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, rail projects gain steam across the U.S., AI optimizes building operations, a modular approach speeds data center construction, and more!

Hyperscalers want their data centers online, and utilities want to provide interconnections, but both are still looking for common operating guidelines. (Herman K. Trabish, Construction Dive)
Contractors are taking advantage of multibillion-dollar train and transit contracts, even as funding challenges create hurdles for project execution. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
Although hospitality and leisure M&A deal volume was down 2.5% in the first half of 2026 compared to the prior six months, investors are concentrating on the upper end of the market, including luxury hotels, wellness resorts and gaming, or “data-rich,” platforms. (Noor Adatia, Hotel Dive)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Perennial Question, Perennial Answer? EPA and Army Corps Propose Year-Round Standard for WOTUS that Could Reshape Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

October 12, 2026 — Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction may be about to get considerably narrower. On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that would limit federal authority over streams and wetlands to those containing water year-round—a “perennial” standard that would go beyond even what the Supreme Court required in Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). The supplemental notice offers two options for revising the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA): One would define “relatively permanent” waters as perennial, and the other would require perennial surface water to establish a wetland’s continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water. If adopted, either option would substantially reduce the number of streams, wetlands and other water features subject to federal permitting, with the sharpest effects in arid and semi-arid regions where rainfall patterns leave many waterways dry for portions of the year. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

June 29, 2026 — Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & Wilmer
A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) OVERVIEW The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law). KEY HOLDINGS 1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session. Reprinted courtesy of Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com Read the full story...

BARRY COUNTY MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES