PROSPERITY PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

July 20, 2026 — Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
I. Course of Construction Exclusions Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy. General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Utah’s Emerging Framework for Responsible Data Center Development

September 08, 2026 — Denise A. Dragoo & Josh Miller - Snell & Wilmer
Utah is establishing itself as one of the nation’s most attractive jurisdictions for large-scale data center development, with a structured, defensible regulatory pathway that gives developers and investors the clarity needed to deploy capital at scale. The cornerstone is Executive Order 2026-03, “Establishing a Higher Bar for Data Center Development in Utah,” signed by Governor Spencer J. Cox on May 29, 2026. The Executive Order creates an actionable compliance framework letting developers demonstrate stewardship across water, air quality, energy, wildlife, and community engagement – reducing regulatory and reputational risk. Recent enactments on energy self-supply and water rights operationalize these principles, while a few counties have adopted short-term local moratoria to update zoning; understanding how these interact with the state framework matters for site selection. Reprinted courtesy of Denise A. Dragoo, Snell & Wilmer and Josh Miller, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Dragoo may be contacted at ddragoo@swlaw.com Mr. Miller may be contacted at jmiller@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Prevents Coverage for Collapse

April 27, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the insurer after agreeing that the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause barred coverage. Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 Iii. App. Unpub. LEXIS 133 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026). One of the brick veneer walls of the Lido Motel collapsed during a windstorm. Lido reported the loss it its insurer, AIX. AIX investigated and determined that the brick veneer collapsed due to pervasive wear and tear and corrosion of the underlying infrastructure that secured the veneer- specifically the components that anchored or tied the masonry veneer to the underlying wooden substrate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

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...

---

PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Proposal—Fast-Track Capacity to Meet Rising Large-Load Demand

May 12, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight, Jason Drogin Atwood & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel
In January, we discussed the Statement of Principles jointly signed by the National Energy Dominance Council and governors across the mid-Atlantic region—framing accelerating demand (especially from large-scale data centers) as an emergency reliability issue for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the nation’s largest power grid operator. That policy signal is now becoming a near-term, accelerated procurement and contracting exercise. On April 8, 2026, PJM notified stakeholders of a critical issue fast path reliability backstop procurement process. PJM subsequently released a request for information (RFI) with respect to a proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP)—a one-time mechanism intended to attract significant new capacity to address projected reliability shortfalls driven by large-load growth. RBP compresses what is often a multiyear market and regulatory conversation into a fast-moving set of commercial choices. Developers, large loads, utilities and capital providers should be preparing now for (i) an accelerated bilateral contracting window and (ii) a standardized PJM-led backstop procurement if bilateral deals do not clear enough capacity. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury, Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Nicole Whyte is the Newly Elected Secretary of the Orange County Bar Association

September 28, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
“I am deeply honored to serve as Secretary of the Orange County Bar Association. To everyone who supported me, endorsed me, encouraged me, shared my message, and cast a ballot, thank you. I am profoundly grateful for your trust and confidence. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I am ready to get to work.” – Nicole Whyte Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Trend Continues Where Unlicensed Contractors Have No Recourse

July 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There’s been a recent trend in Florida case law that has figuratively “killed” unlicensed contractors. Here’s another one. The moral to this trend and case is simple: make sure you have the proper licenses prior to serving as a contractor under Florida law. Trying to be cute, as seemed to be the situation in this case with a creative argument, is not an argument that will carry the day and your resources will be devoted to being creative versus the ultimate merits of the dispute. In Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski, 2026 WL 1649571 (S.D.Fla. 2026) an owner of real property hired a company to design and construct a spec home on the property. The company and its owner were NOT licensed contractors. The contract stated the company was serving as a “spec developer” and referred to it as the contractor throughout the contract. Other than this, the contract was set up as a cost plus a fee. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

August 16, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense. But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence. Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---