COLTON WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Jenny Michel Named Top Lawyer by Acadiana Profile Magazine

June 29, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Lafayette Managing Partner Jenny Michel has been named to Acadiana Profile magazine’s 2026 Top Lawyers list for Insurance Law. The annual list honors excellence across several practice areas. To select attorneys for its Top Lawyers list, Acadiana Profile works with a research firm that conducts a peer-review survey of attorneys in the Acadiana, Louisiana region. The attorneys nominate fellow professionals who they consider the best in their field of practice. Ms. Michel is co-chair of the London Market Group, the Pollution Legal Liability/Environmental Impairment Liability (PLL/EIL) practice, and the Energy, Marine & Power practice. She has worked with London insurers her entire career. Licensed in both Louisiana and Texas, she leads a team of experienced attorneys focused on marine, both traditional and alternate energy, onshore and offshore property, trucking and environmental insurance coverage and bad faith claims, excess monitoring, advice and litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

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

---

Texas Voids Out-of-State Forum and Choice of Law Clauses in Construction Contracts

March 17, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman - Snell & Wilmer
The Texas Legislature amended statutes impacting construction contracts for projects located in Texas to declare any forum selection clause or choice of law provision “void as against public policy,” and mandate venue for any litigation or arbitration shall be in the Texas county in which the work is performed. The parties may stipulate to a different venue only after the dispute arises. Forum selection clauses and choice of law provisions are common in construction contracts. Frequently, general contractors based in other jurisdictions require subcontractors to sign contracts designating the contractor’s preferred venue for any dispute. These contracts may also select the law of another state to govern the contract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com

---

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...

---

Meet BWB&O’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars in Colorado!

April 08, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is thrilled to share that Partner Devin Brunson and Associate Melissa Youngpeter have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 Colorado Rising Stars list. This recognition reflects their exceptional work in Personal Injury and Civil Litigation.

SUPER LAWYERS RISING STARS

Devin Brunson: 2024-2026

Melissa Youngpeter: 2026

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

---

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Celebrating Freedom: The Overlooked Freedom to Contract in Commercial Insurance

July 20, 2026 — Michael S. Levine & Andrea DeField - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Happy 4th and 250 years of freedom . . . to contract! Many policyholders assume insurance policies are “standard” and must be accepted as-is. That assumption is often wrong—and dangerously limiting. Unlike many consumer insurance markets, the commercial insurance realm preserves a robust “freedom to contract,” allowing sophisticated policyholders to negotiate terms, exclusions, definitions, and limits before a policy is even issued. Particularly in recent years, high-profile disputes over cyber coverage, business interruption, and war/cyber exclusions have shown not just what happens when coverage is denied, but what could have been done up front to avoid those fights. This post highlights the power policyholders still hold in the negotiation process and illustrates, with concrete examples from recent media-covered disputes, how that freedom can be strategically used. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@hunton.com Read the full story...

---