Dodge Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness Directory

Insufficient Notice of Commencement and Construction Lien Rights

August 03, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party is preserving their construction lien rights, the party will look to the recorded Notice of Commencement. This is the recorded document that provides the lienor with the information for purposes of preserving construction lien rights. A Notice to Owner company will typically rely on the Notice of Commencement to serve Notices to Owners from lower tiers not in contract with the owner. However, when it comes to preparing the lien, a lienor should look beyond just the Notice of Commencement and also look to the property appraiser’s website as a backstop. In a recent case, a window company had the homeowner sign the Notice of Commencement and then filled in the information. The company naturally did this for the convenience of the homeowner that probably was unfamiliar with the Notice of Commencement process. Regardless, information in the Notice of Commencement was inaccurate. It failed to include all the real property owners. Thus, when a payment dispute arose and a construction lien was prepared, it did not identify all of the real property owners. All of the real property owners were added later during the pendency of a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The trial court denied the lien because of the defective / insufficient Notice of Commencement — the lienor assumed the risk of error by filling out the information in the Notice of Commencement. The trial court further denied the lien holding that because the work did not commence within 90 days of the Notice of Commencement, the Notice of Commencement is void. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law

June 29, 2026 — Brenda Radmacher - The Construction Seyt
Daily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties. The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@seyfarth.com

Delay Matters: Florida’s Fourth DCA Reverses Hurricane Irma Dismissal

June 08, 2026 — Andrea DeField, Machaella Reisman & Cary D. Steklof - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The mantra “delay, deny, defend” is frequently referenced in discussions of insurance claims handling, though insurers will invariably disavow these tactics. While it would be facially improper for an insurer to delay a coverage decision to gain a tactical advantage, empirical examples nonetheless exist. This very dynamic was addressed by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals when it handed policyholders a win in Hypoluxo Mariner’s Cay Condo. Assoc’n, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4D2024‑2250 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 1, 2026), reversing a trial court order dismissing a condominium association’s Hurricane Irma coverage lawsuit against its property insurer. Delay to Run the Statute of Limitations Following Hurricane Irma, a condominium association suffered roof and exterior envelope damage, reported an insurance claim, and submitted a sworn proof of loss to its property insurer in compliance with Florida Statute § 627.70132 (2020). The statute establishes a timeframe within which a policyholder must submit a claim for hurricane damage. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Machaella Reisman, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@hunton.com Ms. Reisman may be contacted at reismanm@hunton.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@hunton.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...

Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

June 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Most, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees. But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.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

White and Williams LLP is Proud to Host the 20th Anniversary Virginia Barton Wallace Award and Reception

May 05, 2026 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP is proud to host the 20th Anniversary Virginia Barton Wallace (VBW) Award and Reception, which will celebrate this year’s honoree, The Rendell Center for Civics & Civic Engagement. This award was created to celebrate the remarkable career of Virginia “Ginny” Barton Wallace, the first woman to be elected to partnership not only at White and Williams but also at any law firm in Philadelphia. The VBW Award is presented to a woman or organization that embodies the same qualities that Ginny possessed: leadership, drive, exemplary work ethic, overall excellence in her field, or an ability to inspire other women to succeed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

“He Chose…Poorly: How Bad DSC Clauses Lead to Project Doom in the Last Crusade of Construction Risk”

March 10, 2026 — Curt Martin & Lee Banta - ConsensusDocs
“We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and X never, ever marks the spot.” That’s the advice that Indiana Jones offered in the Last Crusade film. But what’s beneath the surface isn’t just important to adventure archaeologists. It has real-world application to our industry, where success depends on the stability of materials below the surface. The study of geology and soils has ancient roots. Egyptians relied on soil stability for the pyramids; Rome built a continent-wide roadway system utilizing subgrade preparation techniques; Medieval builders implemented a rudimentary foundation pier system; Henri Gautier studied what is now called the “angle of repose” for French retaining walls in the early 18th Century. Through the 19th Century, contractors bore the risk of the stability of their work, and the attendant peril of unforeseen site conditions. But in the early 20th Century, design trades continued to develop increased understanding of soil and underground conditions. In the 1920’s US federal contracts began employing “differing site conditions” clauses, which provided for cost/time adjustments if subsurface conditions differed from expectations. Industry forms followed the federal policy, and these clauses became almost universally accepted. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lee Banta, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

DODGE WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES