Duke Oklahoma Construction Expert Witness Directory

Cuomo Bridge Lawsuit Adversaries Weigh Mediated Settlement

July 06, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Rival legal teams have reached a critical juncture as they consider a mediated settlement in one of two major payment lawsuits pending between a design-build contracting team and the New York State Thruway Authority over construction of the more than $3-billion Mario M. Cuomo Bridge north of New York City. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Florida's Third DCA Reasserts the Teeth of Chapter 558 and the Future of Construction Defect Litigation

February 23, 2026 — Ryan C. Brooks & Keith G. Salhab - Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
The case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Though procedurally narrow, the ruling reflects an increasingly assertive appellate stance. Chapter 558's pre-suit notice and right-to-repair process is mandatory, jurisdictional in effect, and not subject to dilution by trial-level discretion. At its core, the opinion reinforces a foundational principle. Florida intends for construction defect disputes to be managed, investigated, and often resolved before they reach a courtroom. The Third DCA's insistence on strict statutory compliance signals to trial courts, and to the plaintiffs' bar, that procedural shortcuts will not be tolerated. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan C. Brooks, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP and Keith G. Salhab, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Mr. Brooks may be contacted at rbrooks@wshblaw.com Mr. Salhab may be contacted at ksalhab@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

EPA, Maryland Sue DC Water Over Massive Potomac River Sewage Spill

May 14, 2026 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The state of Maryland and the federal government have filed separate lawsuits against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), both alleging that the agency’s failure to address longstanding deterioration in the Potomac Interceptor contributed to a weeklong release of more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River this past January. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Fort Lauderdale Associate Secures Summary Judgment in Rare Premises Liability Win

February 23, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Fort Lauderdale associate Kyle Hollander recently secured a summary judgment victory for his client, Winn-Dixie, in a contested premises liability case. This was a hotly disputed liability case of water on the floor near an ice cooler with surveillance footage of a customer constantly bringing bags of ice to and from the cooler to the register. The plaintiff unknowingly stepped into the area of dripped melted ice and fell. Kyle successfully argued based on the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony and the surveillance footage that Winn-Dixie didn’t have the requisite actual notice. Additionally, Kyle argued that the brief duration the condition remained on the floor was legally insufficient to establish constructive notice under Florida law. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence would not survive a directed verdict and granting summary judgment in favor of the defense. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Parking Garage Partially Collapses in Dearborn, Mich., Trapping One

March 31, 2026 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
A multi-level parking garage that partially collapsed in Dearborn, Mich., is fenced off and the city has started the legal process allowed under state law to demolish the privately-owned structure due to alleged dangerous conditions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com

Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?

June 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages. As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

DUKE OKLAHOMA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES