CONDOMINUM EXPERT WITNESS HIGH SPRINGS FLORIDA FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION DEFECT EXPERT WITNESS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESSES AND CONSULTANTS FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Unlicensed Contracting and Florida Statute S. 489.128

February 03, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 489.128 is a statute that provides a remedy against unlicensed contracting. However, keep in mind that this argument—the unlicensed contractor argument—is a technical statutory argument. In other words, it’s not so much of a fact-based merits argument, but an argument that’s solely based on the technicality of the statute. This, by no means, is not a recommendation that the argument should not be raised. In instances, it absolutely should be and could have legitimate traction. However, when deciding whether to or how to pursue a dispute, including settlement, you want to keep in mind whether this is an argument you want to bank your outcome on because there are always costs (attorney’s fees, court costs, etc.) that should get factored into any business decision regarding a dispute. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Construction Laws and Customs: District of Columbia

April 29, 2025 — Anthony LaPlaca, Edward (Teddie) Arnold & Jason Smith - The Construction Seyt
Seyfarth’s Anthony LaPlaca, Teddie Arnold, and Jason Smith recently published the 2025 annual update of the Thomson Reuters state law survey of construction laws and customs for the District of Columbia. This survey contains questions and answers about frequently asked questions concerning construction projects governed by D.C. law, including prompt pay and retainage requirements, stop work rights, licensing issues, warranties, bonding requirements, and litigation concerns for public and private projects. The survey is a useful resource for builders, owners, and design professionals operating in the District of Columbia and may be accessed at the link below. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Edward (Teddie) Arnold, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Jason Smith, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Arnold may be contacted at earnold@seyfarth.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at jnsmith@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---

With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

December 17, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Remember 2019? That’s when contractors faced sudden material price surges from tariffs during then-President Donald Trump’s first term in office. How about 2021? That's when contractors saw new price surges and long delivery delays because of Covid-19. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Insurer's Motion to Compel Inspection Denied

March 11, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion to compel an inspection of the insured's residential rental property and the insurer's request for attorney fees. Bradley v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14522 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2025). Plaintiff suffered damage to her property due to Hurricane Ida. Evanston insured the property. Plaintiff submitted a claim for loss sustained in the storm. Evanston sent a claims adjuster to inspect the property. Plaintiff alleged that Evanston failed to pay sufficient funds for her loss. Plaintiff filed suit raising claims of breach of contract and bad faith. Evanston filed a Motion to Compel plaintiff to allow the insurer's engineer, Kevin Vanderbrook, P.E., to inspect the property. Evanston contended plaintiff had retained her own engineer and public adjuster but denied Evanston's request to allow Vanderbrook to inspect the property to evaluate plaintiff's experts' opinions. Plaintiff argued that Evanston should be prohibited from inspecting the property so late in the litigation, especially considering that Evanston failed to follow through on any of its multiple attempts to schedule Vanderbrook's inspection before plaintiff filed suit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Alaska Supreme Court Rules That “Total Pollution Exclusion” in Homeowners Insurance Policy Does Not Bar Coverage for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

April 15, 2025 — Geoffrey B. Fehling, Andrew S. Koelz & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
For decades, homeowners and other insurance policies have included broad pollution exclusions, often referred to as a “total pollution exclusion.” In a recent decision in Wheeler v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins., No. S-18849 (Alaska Feb. 28, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court held that a “total pollution exclusion” in a homeowners insurance policy did not apply to exclude coverage for injury arising out of exposure to carbon monoxide emitted by an improperly installed home appliance. Examining the breadth of the exclusion and applying the generally held principle that exclusions are to be construed narrowly, the court thus fulfilled the policyholder’s reasonable expectation of coverage for injuries resulting from the carbon monoxide exposure. Background A 17-year-old minor rented a cabin in Alaska and, during his tenancy, was found dead in the cabin’s bathtub. An autopsy and investigation by the deputy fire marshal determined that the tenant died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning caused by an improperly vented propane water heater installed in the same bathroom. Testing showed that the bathroom had accumulated high levels of carbon monoxide when the water heater was running. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@hunton.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Tariffs and the Art of the Price Escalation “Deal”

February 12, 2025 — Ryan Wozny, Levi W. Barrett, Gary M. Stein & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.” ― Donald Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal This alert will focus on the steps the contracting community should consider in light of the stated intention of the Trump administration to impose tariffs on many goods imported into the United States. Background The world was first introduced to President Trump’s strategy of imposing tariffs as leverage to negotiate foreign and domestic policy in 2018 with steel and aluminum tariffs. Those tariffs were imposed on the import of certain Chinese-manufactured products and remained intact through the Biden Administration. President Trump has stated his intention to expand the use of this tactic by imposing a 25% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico, Canada, and an additional 10% tariff on all goods imported from China. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Wozny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Wozny may be contacted at rwozny@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Top Developments: 2025 - Issue 2

May 06, 2025 — John S. Anooshian, Paul A. Briganti, Gianna Martorano, Tracey M. Jervis, Ingrid Lopez Martinez & Austin D. Moody - The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
ENSUING LOSS CLAUSE Bob Robison Com. Flooring Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6369 (8th Cir., Mar. 19, 2025) Eighth Circuit, predicting Arkansas law, concludes that an ensuing loss exception to a “Defects, Errors, Or Omissions” exclusion* in a builder’s risk policy installation floater did not “restore” coverage for costs incurred by a contractor-insured to remove and replace flooring it installed in a gym that was damaged by a subcontractor’s faulty painting work. It was undisputed that faulty workmanship was the sole and exclusive cause of loss which occurred when paint was misapplied to the floor. The insured argued the ensuing loss clause restored coverage because the damage to the floor was a covered peril that resulted from the sub’s work and the language defining “covered peril” rendered the clause “nonsensical and its coverage illusory.” Reprinted courtesy of John S. Anooshian, White and Williams LLP, Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP, Gianna Martorano, White and Williams LLP, Tracey M. Jervis, White and Williams LLP, Ingrid Lopez Martinez, White and Williams LLP and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Martorano may be contacted at martoranog@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

To Ask or Not to Ask (Arbitrator Inquiries and the Obligation to Remain Neutral)

May 23, 2025 — Lisa D. Love - The Dispute Resolver
Questions will arise at various stages of arbitral proceedings that require answers for arbitrators to fully understand and consider the evidence presented by the parties and to issue an award. While many arbitrators are likely to issue formal arbitrator inquiries through procedural orders or oral questions during proceedings, others may refrain from issuing them for various reasons. Regardless of your arbitral perspective, the extent to which arbitrators participate in the arbitral process by asking questions and issuing arbitrator inquiries is not unlimited. Arbitrators must balance their need for information with their ethical duty to remain neutral. Thus, with every arbitrator inquiry, whether written or oral, arbitrators must initially answer the question: “to ask or not to ask”— that is the pivotal preliminary internal arbitrator inquiry. Some Applicable Ethical Standards Concerning Arbitral Inquiries Most arbitral institution rules, court rules and bar association canons contain provisions governing arbitrator impartiality. Under most arbitral institution rules, arbitrators must remain neutral and impartial throughout the course of the arbitration, absent an agreement by the parties to the contrary. Impartiality means freedom from favoritism either by word or action.[1] In New York state, an arbitrator must conduct the arbitration in an impartial manner and act at all times with the utmost impartiality and evenhandedness.[2] In addition, arbitrators in New York should refrain from providing professional advice to any party and should at all times strive to distinguish between the roles of arbitrator and that of adviser or party counsel.[3] Further, according to the American Bar Association Code of Ethics for Arbitrators, when the arbitrator determines that more information than has been presented by the parties is required to decide the case, it is not improper for the arbitrator to ask questions, call witnesses, and request documents or other evidence, including expert testimony.[4] However, the ABA Canons caution that arbitrators should avoid conduct and statements that give the appearance of partiality toward or against any party.[5] Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa D. Love, JAMS

---