PORTLAND OREGON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/23/25) – Builders Look for Startups, AI Transforms Real Estate and Interest Rates Stall Construction Momentum

August 25, 2025 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Our latest roundup features adaptive reuse in the hospitality industry, falling home prices in major markets, loan maturity in real estate, and more!

• Builders are ramping up their own venture funding arms, and they’re looking for startups that are commercial-ready, rather than starting out. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
• Adaptive reuse is not exclusive to the hotel industry, but more hospitality brands and builders are seeking it out for its cost-savings, sustainability and design appeal. (Jenna Graber, Hotel Dive)
• Nearly one-third of the largest 100 markets are now showing annual price declines of at least a full percentage point from recent highs, and the trend suggests more markets will do the same. (Diana Olick, CNBC)

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

---

Waste Not: NJ Digester Plant Transforms Food Waste to Fuel

June 23, 2025 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
It’s no secret that New York City, like many densely populated urban areas throughout history, has a trash and rodent problem. Mountains of bloated trash bags —many containing food waste that attract rats burrowing and gnawing through them—are a blight on sidewalks all over the city. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record

---

Staying Single?

April 08, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A recent decision by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the real concern regarding the proverbial “empty chair” in arbitrations: when parties tangentially or even directly involved in the circumstances of a claim cannot be compelled to arbitrate in a single arbitration. The case involved multiple parties and a series of arbitrations that resulted in conflicting awards. The arbitration provision at issue incorporated the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Rules (although the arbitrations were not administered by the AAA, per the agreement among the parties), which was pivotal in delegating significant questions to the arbitrators. In part, the appellate court addressed the enforceability of a contractually imposed four-month deadline to complete arbitration and the permissibility of simultaneous arbitrations, both of which were questions adjudged to have been delegated to the arbitrators. The arbitrators deemed the deadline “unconscionable” and also allowed multiple arbitration proceedings, demonstrating the broad discretion arbitrators possess under such agreements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Texas Court Finds Construction Defect Claims Were Inherently Undiscoverable, Tolls Statute of Limitations

July 22, 2025 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., No. 08:23-00332-cv, 2025 Tex. App. Lexis 3584 (Morningside), the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the plaintiff’s construction defect claims were “inherently undiscoverable,” thereby tolling the applicable limitations period under the discovery rule. The lower court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims were brought outside of the four-year limitations period. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the alleged defects were “inherently undiscoverable” as a matter of law, which tolled the applicable limitations period. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the alleged defects were “inherently undiscoverable” and the defendants failed to conclusively negate the application of the discovery rule. The plaintiff owned and operated several senior living facilities and, in 2012, hired defendant Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd. (Koontz) to construct a 100-apartment addition to one of their facilities. The plaintiff also retained defendant Project Control of Texas, Inc. (Project Control) as the project manager. The defendants substantially completed their work in 2016 and, thus, the certificate of substantial completion was executed on March 31, 2016. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Construction Projects and Subrogation: Timing is Everything

April 01, 2025 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Strategist
In American Fam. Ins. Co. v. NB Elec., Inc., No. A24-0377, 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 12, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota (Court of Appeals) considered whether an insurer’s subrogation action was time barred under Minnesota’s two-year statute of limitations period. At issue was whether the statute of limitations began to run when the insured homeowner terminated the general contractor or when construction, with a new general contractor, was complete. Because the construction project did not terminate upon the replacement of the general contractor, the Court of Appeals found that the claims were not time-barred. In this case, the insured homeowner hired a general contractor for a home remodeling project in February 2020. The general contractor subsequently hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical work for the project. A fire damaged the home during construction in July 2020. The homeowner terminated the original general contractor in April 2021 and shortly thereafter hired a new general contractor to complete the home remodeling project. The work was substantially completed in July 2021. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

---

(Don’t) Go Fish

May 12, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana faced significant discovery challenges in a complex trade secrets dispute initiated by a general contractor against several defendants, including former employees of the general contractor. The contractor alleged that defendants misappropriated confidential customer lists, pricing strategies, and business plans in order to unfairly compete against the contractor. The contractor sought and was granted immediate injunctive relief, and, as the case progressed, the court implemented a protective order and a forensic protocol to manage the exchange and examination of the alleged misappropriated information. Despite these measures, discovery quickly became contentious. One critical ruling on a motion to compel involved defendants’ suggestions that the contractor had not adequately protected trade secrets -- and defendants’ request for information from the contractor on the topic. The court found no substantial evidence of improper disclosures and ruled that requiring a contractor to review all its documents for potential external disclosures was disproportionate – without tangible evidence of such actions (the court emphasizing the necessity of specificity in discovery requests to avoid undue burdens). In connection therewith, the court also examined the contractor’s efforts to protect its trade secrets, which the court found adequate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Candace Dickson Recognized as “Up & Coming Lawyer” by The Indiana Lawyer

June 16, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Northwest Indiana (June 3, 2025) – Northwest Indiana Associate Candace C. Dickson was recently honored by The Indiana Lawyer as an “Up & Coming Lawyer” at the organization’s “Leadership in Law” awards ceremony. According to the publication, this year’s honorees include 37 talented attorneys who “represent the strength and the future of Indiana’s legal profession.” When asked why she chose law as a career, Mrs. Dickson said “I decided to enter the legal profession so that I could assist my community with understanding the law. Many of them do not have access to an attorney. I wanted to fill that gap for individuals who looked like me and were from my hometown.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Massachusetts High Court Allows Plaintiffs to Bring Contract-Based Construction Defects Claim After Expiration of Statute of Repose

August 18, 2025 — Will S. Bennett & Ali H. Jamwal - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently expanded plaintiffs’ rights to bring construction defects suits in the state.[1] The ruling allows plaintiffs in Massachusetts to now bring suit even after the statute of repose for construction defect claims has passed if the cause of action is based on a contractual dispute rather than tort liability. Plaintiff, the Trustees of Boston University (“Boston University”), and defendant, Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP (“CHA”), entered into a contract in June 2012 for CHA to design a new athletic field at the university premises. The contract contained an express indemnification provision. Following completion, Boston University faced numerous issues using the field because of design defects. CHA’s design did not account for seasonal expansion in the joists of the parking structure, which caused depressions in the field, rendering it unsafe and unusable. Boston University incurred expenses to correct these design flaws and informed CHA of these design defects in September 2017. In July 2020, Boston University sued CHA seeking indemnification for its expenses. CHA moved for summary judgment based on Massachusetts’ statute of repose, which limits action for damages arising out of any deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property to be commenced no later than six years after the earlier of the dates of either the opening of the site or substantial completion of the project. CHA successfully argued that Boston University was time-barred from bringing a claim, and the trial court granted CHA’s motion. Boston University appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Will S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ali H. Jamwal, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jamwal may be contacted at AJamwal@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---