EDWARDSBURG MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

White and Williams LLP Recognized on the List of Largest Law Firms in Greater Philadelphia

March 03, 2026 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP was recently recognized on the list of Largest Law Firms in Greater Philadelphia by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The Firm is ranked #10 among the largest law firms in the Greater Philadelphia area. This listing ranks over 500 law firms in the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, or Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, or Gloucester in New Jersey, and Kent or New Castle in Delaware. White and Williams has been named on the list since 2023. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later

April 14, 2026 — Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLP
Turnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation. The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims. Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt. These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association. The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences: Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects. Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable. Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign. Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement. These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance. Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims. Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.

---

Every High-Tech Building Has Many Lifespans

August 16, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
When I worked as an architect, our team designed a laboratory for fuel research. The facility included a large research hall where various boilers and other devices were tested and analyzed. The setup required extensive floor channeling under the thick concrete floor. We suggested building a modular system that would allow flexibility in the future, when requirements would certainly change. They did not want that because of budget constraints. The high-tech construction trend is spreading. Data centers, semiconductor fabs, battery plants, and life science facilities share one property that sets them apart from ordinary buildings. The technology inside turns over faster than the structure around it. Server generations change every three to five years. Rack densities have risen from 10 or 20 kW to 130 kW and beyond in just a few years. A high-tech facility is really several buildings with different lifespans inside one envelope, and we keep designing them as if they were one. The failure is not that things become obsolete. It is that we never say when each layer is expected to. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision

April 20, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted). The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id. In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Location, Location, Location — But Which One? The Few Words in Your Construction Contract that Pick Where You Fight

June 29, 2026 — Brad Sands - ConsensusDocs
Most professionals know the old real estate line: location, location, location. It turns out to be just as true for construction contracts as it is for property. Consider a recent case involving a project owner that hired two design firms for a project. When issues arose during construction, the owner sued the design firms in state court in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The defendants then removed the case to the federal district court in Galveston, a courthouse in a different county. But the owner wanted the case back in Brazoria County state court. Whether it got its wish came down to two words in the contract: “situated in.” This article is about words like those. A construction contract’s forum selection clause names the place for the fight nobody plans to have, and where that fight happens can shape how it goes. This article explains why the wording in your forum selection clause deserves careful reading before you sign a construction contract. It is not a deep dive into the mechanics of federal removal jurisdiction, and it is not an academic comparison of the terms “forum” and “venue.” Instead, it is a practical look at how courts actually read these clauses, so the location of a future fight is the one you intended. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brad Sands, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

---

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Fatalities Edge Down: New Data Reveals a Promising Decline

April 27, 2026 — Construction Executive
Construction fatalities in the United States declined slightly in 2024, according to new data released from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sector recorded just over 1,000 worker deaths last year—a modest decrease from the previous year but still among the highest totals of any industry. Falls remained the leading cause of death, accounting for roughly one-third of all construction fatalities. Transportation incidents—including workers struck by vehicles or equipment—ranked second, followed by contact with objects or equipment and electrocutions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Why Travelers Fought a Fire Claim for Invisible Smoke Damage

February 23, 2026 — Elaine Silver - Engineering News-Record
Just 40 minutes after midnight on Sept. 27, 2018, the sky lit up over Birmingham, Ala. A fire engulfed an apartment building under construction—the last-to-be completed section of a wood-framed complex called the Metropolitan. It fueled one of the largest recorded blazes in the city’s history. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---