CHAPMAN RANCH TEXAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

How to Properly Fill Out and Use the Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment Form Used in California Construction

December 15, 2025 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
This is the first article in a series of four articles discussing how to properly fill out the four California construction releases described in California Civil Code 8132 – 8138. Let me start by noting that in addition to practicing construction law for more than 35 years, I chaired the committee of California construction attorneys who revised those sections of the California Civil Code dealing with this release form and many other construction forms as part of Senate Bill 189 in 2010. I also wrote the first version of this release form and made it free to the public well before the new law took effect in 2012. With this background, let me note a few things about the Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment form to help you avoid mistakes that might prevent you from achieving the intended effect or the form or releasing claim rights to a greater extent than you intend. At the end of this article is a copy of the form itself which includes numbers coinciding with the instructions I will give below. A live electronically fillable version of the form is available on our firm’s website (www.porterlaw.com) under the “Forms” section. It is free and you can fill it out on your screen before printing it out and signing it. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

AIA Waivers Under Fire: Why Post-Completion Losses May Still Be Actionable

January 26, 2026 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
On its face, the power of a waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract is profound. It bars otherwise actionable – and sometimes egregious – losses resulting from contractor carelessness before they can ever get started. One question courts have long battled with is the limits to the lasting effects of such a waiver. Whether the waiver power can be transferred amongst parties, applied to third parties or used with policies taken out after construction completion are among the few grey areas that have kept subrogation practitioners and the courts busy. Recently, a federal court in Idaho clarified its position on the power to waive subrogation. In Seneca Ins. Co. v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00340-BLW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251777 (D. Idaho), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) addressed whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract, signed between an owner and the general contractor, applied to the subsequent owner of a building. In doing so, the court looked at the limiting language of the waiver as well as the contractual posture of the subsequent owner. Ultimately, the court found the waiver inapplicable, denying the motion for summary judgment of Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff McAlvain Construction, Inc. (McAlvain). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Bad Faith Claim Dismissed as Insurer’s Actions Found Reasonable

December 08, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured’s bad faith claims failed as the court found that the insurer’s handling of the claim was reasonable. Terrazas v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201925 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 20. 2025). Plaintiff filed a claim with State Farm when her home suffered hail damage. Claims Specialist Denice Gomez was assigned to inspect, but she was unable to access the roof. She inspected the interior of the home and found water damage and observed hail damage on the garage doors. Ms. Gomez retained SeekNow to complete the roof inspection. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions

May 12, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Contract drafting and interpretation matters. A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language. But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:

Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

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

---

End of an (Endangerment) Era

February 23, 2026 — Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.5 Reprinted courtesy of Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer, Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron

February 02, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Background In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

---

Seattle’s Residential Zoning Transformation: What Property Owners, Buyers, and Investors Should Understand

May 14, 2026 — Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Seattle is in the midst of a significant transformation in residential land use policy. Longstanding neighborhood zoning patterns that historically favored detached single-family development are being reexamined in response to housing supply pressures, affordability concerns, and evolving state mandates. For homeowners, purchasers, investors, and builders, these changes may create substantial new opportunities. They also create a heightened need for careful legal and practical due diligence. While zoning reform can expand potential uses of property, it does not eliminate the many other constraints that may still govern what can actually be built. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

---