Water Mill New York Construction Expert Witness Directory

WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence

May 12, 2026 — Wood Smith Henning Berman
Chad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law. Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning Berman

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

White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins

May 12, 2026 — Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLP
Three weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins. White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Reprinted courtesy of Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

Risks of Using an AI Chatbot for Legal Advice: Lessons from United States v. Heppner

April 08, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Imagine that you are an executive (who is not a lawyer) and are concerned about what your company plans to do is legal. You could call your lawyer who might bill you for the call. Or, you can ask your AI chatbot, such as Claude or ChatGPT, about the legal risk. The chatbot will likely compliment you on the incisive question, provide you with highly confident answer (that may or may not be right) and will not bill you on an hourly basis. That is essentially what financial services executive Bradley Heppner did. It did not end well. A federal court recently ruled that Heppner’s chats with the AI tool Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. That means that the other side (in this case, the federal government) could get access to his chatbot prompts, uploads and responses, and learn a great deal about, for example, whether Heppner knew what he was doing was illegal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

August 11, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insureds’ Altering Dates for Hailstorm Damage Justifies Denial of Claim

June 02, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Firth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer due to the insureds’ failure to establish the date of loss after a hailstorm. Cutchall v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2026 WL 625633 (5th Cir. March 5, 2026). In September 2021, the Cutchalls made a claim on their policy for interior water damage due to a hailstorm that breached their roof. Chubb retained two engineers to inspect the home, but neither found evidence that a hailstorm caused the damage. Instead, the engineers concluded a variety of other causes, such as poor ventilation and as-built defects, caused the damage. Because Chubb concluded that some of these other causes were covered by the policy, it paid only for the covered portions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Modern Building-Sundt $17M Claim Is Stranded by Hospital Bankruptcy

April 27, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
A $16.9-million claim for work on a hospital addition by a joint venture of contractors Modern Building Co. and Sundt Construction is stuck and delayed indefinitely following the California hospital's December bankruptcy filing. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.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

WATER MILL NEW YORK CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES