HARRISON MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

May 14, 2026 — Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning Berman
A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

---

Celebrating 29 Years – Thank You for Your Continued Trust!

April 20, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
For 29 years, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP has grown alongside the clients and communities we proudly serve. What began as a single office in Orange County has evolved into a multi-state firm with 11 locations across five states. Today, we are proud to be supported by a dedicated team of more than 200 attorneys and over 400 employees who work every day to deliver exceptional service and results. This milestone is not just about where we started; it’s about the people who have helped shape who we are today. Our continued growth reflects the strength of our relationships, the trust of our clients and partners, and the commitment of our team. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Insured Does Not Prevail on Summary Judgment Motion Invoking Ensuing Loss Provision

May 05, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of fact regarding implication of the policy’s ensuing loss provision. Stella Prop. Dev.. & Event Productions, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15854 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026). Stella owned a cultural center that was insured under a commercial property all-risk policy issued by Auto-Owners. A windstorm with gusts of 65 miles per hour struck the Center causing damage. The Center’s inspector found extensive wind damage on nearly all facets of the roof. Further, the inspector found the existing organic shingles were in “very poor condition” and were “defective, discontinued, and no longer available.” The estimated cost of repairs to the roof was $108,010.52. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision

April 20, 2026 — Tara Martens Miller - Snell & Wilmer
The Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ward v. Bishop Constr., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 51118, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 31, 2025) offers valuable guidance for contractors and construction attorneys navigating the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA). The December 2025 ruling clarifies critical questions about when and how defendants may raise contractor registration defenses, the weight of pretrial stipulations, and the consequences of procedural missteps in construction litigation. This article examines the key takeaways from the decision and offers practical actions for consideration by those working in Idaho’s construction industry. The Facts Behind the Dispute The case arose from a long-standing working relationship between cousins Joel Ward and Ren Bishop dating to the 1990s. Ward performed general construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC, including building, plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, and siding work on projects in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bishop agreed to pay Ward $10 per hour, later increased to $12 per hour, plus one-way travel expenses. Between 2017 and 2019, Ward worked over 1,100 hours but was never paid, totaling $12,443.54 in claimed damages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com

---

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Claim for Roof Damage Caused by Windstorm

May 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, eliminating the insured’s claim for roof damage due to windstorm. Mulas v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537 (Jan. 30, 2026). The insureds’ commercial property sustained windstorm damage during Hurricane Ian. Westchester denied the claim. The insureds believed Westchester wrongfully denied coverage for roof damage and various interior damage to property. The insureds also argued that Westchester’s actual cash value (ACV) payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. The insureds sued and Westchester moved for summary judgment. Westchester argued the roof damage was not covered because Hurricane Ian did not cause the damage. Westchester hired an engineer who determined the roof damage was not caused by wind from Hurricane Ian. Westchester pointed out that the insureds’ expert also found no wind damage on the roof. The insureds offered no other evidence suggesting the hurricane caused roof damage. Therefore, the insureds could not show that Westchester breached the policy by denying coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Balancing the Right to Repair With Evidence Preservation in Construction Defect Litigation

April 20, 2026 — Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer - Construction Executive
Every major construction project comes with risk, whether it’s a warehouse build, a multifamily development or a major renovation. Parties tend to be aligned when things are proceeding as planned. But when something goes wrong—cracked concrete, water intrusion, systems that don’t perform as expected—those interests can quickly diverge. Property owners are often caught in the middle when construction defects surface. They’re expected to act quickly to limit damage and costs. But they also have legal obligations to preserve evidence and allow potentially responsible parties, such as contractors or designers, to observe testing, demolition and repairs. Additionally, owners often have duties to lenders and investors to fix problems promptly and pursue claims against those responsible. Meanwhile, contractors and other parties have obligations of their own—not to interfere with repairs and not to delay mitigation efforts while investigations are underway. What follows will examine how those competing responsibilities play out in construction defect disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Two Important Points Regarding the Miller Act

September 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller Act case, U.S. f/u/b/o Boundless Management Outsourcing Group, LLC v. Endurance Assurance Corp, 2026 WL 2241491 (D. Puerto Rico 2026), confirms two important points when it comes to the Miller Act. In this case, a subcontractor pursued a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit more than one year after its work was finished. The subcontractor also asserted a claim against the federal government. The lawsuit was dismissed. Below are two takeaway points to consider if you are dealing with a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. First, as it relates the claim against the federal government, the federal district court followed authority that held that the Miller Act does NOT include a waiver of sovereign immunity against the federal government. “[T]he Court does not identify any clear language in the Miller Act expressly waiving the United States or its agencies’ sovereign immunity.” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *3. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison

June 02, 2026 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
1. Introduction As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years. The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

---