PULASKI WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation

July 27, 2026 — Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and Williams
White and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia. To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams, Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams, Zachary Roth, White and Williams and William Taylor, White and Williams Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

50 State Matrices | 2026 Edition

March 03, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
GRSM’s 50 State Legal Matrices provide a comprehensive, state-by-state snapshot of statutory law across all 50 U.S. states. Spanning critical areas such as indemnification, contractor licensing, labor standards, statute of limitations, and more, this resource enables businesses and counsel to quickly identify key legal requirements and variations across jurisdictions. Designed as a practical starting point rather than definitive legal advice, the Matrices help multi-state operators and attorneys navigate the complex patchwork of laws that can vary dramatically from one state to another. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Did You Get the Message? (And does it count?) The Legal Consequences of Text Messages, Group Chats, and Informal Digital Communication on Construction Projects

March 17, 2026 — Kellie Ros & Curtis Martin - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: The New Reality of Construction Communication Construction projects have always depended on a constant stream of communication. Today’s project managers, superintendents, and foremen have broadened the method of communication to include convenient forms of digital communication. Superintendents text photos of field conditions, owners send quick approvals through WhatsApp, architects clarify design intent in a Teams chat, and subcontractors coordinate sequencing through group texts. These channels are fast, convenient, and deeply embedded in modern project culture. Yet the legal framework governing construction contracts has not evolved at the same pace. Many contracts still assume – or require – that notice, directives, and approvals occur through formal written channels—letters, emails to designated recipients, or structured project‑management platforms. This disconnect creates significant legal risk, particularly for contractors who rely on informal messages as authorization for extra work or schedule changes. Courts are increasingly asked to interpret text messages, chat threads, and screenshots as evidence of notice, direction, or waiver. The outcomes vary, but the trend is unmistakable: informal digital communication is now part of the project record, and it can bind parties in ways they did not expect. Reprinted courtesy of Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Curtis Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

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...

---

Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices

August 11, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Builders Oppose Senate Housing Bill Over Investor Ban Provision

March 24, 2026 — Katy O'Donnell - Bloomberg
A powerful group representing the nation’s home builders is coming out against the most significant housing legislation in more than a decade over a provision negotiated by the White House that would restrict institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes. The builders’ objection could imperil the bill’s chances of becoming law, even as leaders of both parties are desperate to show they are doing something to alleviate voters’ cost-of-living concerns. The Senate voted 90-8 to clear a procedural hurdle for the bill on Wednesday, with a vote on final passage expected early next week. The inclusion of the investor ban in a broader housing bill was key to getting the White House on board, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Tuesday. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katy O'Donnell, Bloomberg

---

DOI Finalizes Long-Awaited Modernization of Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations

August 03, 2026 — Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
For nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026. As discussed previously, DOI has sought to modernize what it views as an “inefficient and inflexible” process and restore the Type A procedure to its intended role as a more streamlined pathway for smaller, less contentious NRD claims. The final rule adopts a $5 million default damages threshold, allows use above that amount if all parties agree, clarifies that Type A may be used in all environments and for all natural resource types, and removes legacy model appendices that had tethered the process to outdated formulas. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

July 13, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & Wilmer
On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---