SCAFFOLDING EXPERT WITNESS FORENSIC ARCHITECT EXPERT WITNESS BALDWIN FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Non-Imputation Affidavit in Real Estate Title Insurance

June 02, 2025 — Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The core problem addressed in a Non-Imputation Affidavit. Standard title insurance policies contain crucial exclusions from coverage. Among the most pertinent in this context are exclusions related to title defects, liens, or other adverse matters that are “known” to the insured party but are not part of the public record and have not been disclosed to the title insurer. In transactions involving entities, a legal principle known as “imputation of knowledge” can attribute the knowledge possessed by key individuals (like partners or officers) to the entity itself or to incoming stakeholders. This imputation can trigger the policy’s knowledge-based exclusions, creating a significant gap in title insurance coverage precisely when new investors or partners most need it. The non-imputation affidavit and the resulting endorsement work in tandem to bridge this potential coverage gap. Title insurance policies provide crucial protection, but they are not absolute guarantees against all possible title problems. Policies universally contain standard exclusions that define the boundaries of coverage. Exclusions are particularly relevant to the issue of imputed knowledge:

1. Exclusion 3(b) (Referencing standard ALTA policy language): This exclusion typically bars coverage for loss or damage arising from “defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters… not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy”. This language directly targets matters within the insured’s knowledge – when the “insured claimant” named in the policy is a business entity (such as a partnership, LLC, or corporation), the application of Exclusion 3(b) becomes complex. The critical question is: whose knowledge constitutes the “knowledge of the insured entity”? Under common law principles of imputed knowledge, the awareness of key individuals acting for the entity – partners, managing members, officers, directors – regarding off-record title issues could legally be attributed to the entity itself. This means Exclusion 3(b) could be triggered, denying coverage, even if the entity’s current management or incoming investors were genuinely unaware of the specific defect.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

---

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...

---

Subcontractor Default Insurance (“SDI”): What Is It?

April 29, 2025 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
While general contractors are planning for successful completion of their projects, they unfortunately must also account for risks associated with subcontractor defaults. General contractors have to understand their options for minimizing losses arising from subcontractor defaults and must take proper steps to protect their interests and ensure project completion. General contractors primarily minimize loss through contracts, bonding, and insurance. While there are many ways to manage and protect against the risk of loss from subcontractors, Subcontractor Default Insurance (“SDI”) is one product that can help. A. Subcontractor Bonds At the outset, it is important to note that SDI is not a bond. A subcontractor performance bond is a surety bond required by general contractors for subcontractors to guarantee their performance on a project. It is a three-party relationship between the principal, the surety, and the obligee. The principal (the subcontractor) purchases a bond for a project. The surety provides the bond and assures that the principal will perform. The obligee (the general contractor) is the party protected by the bond. If the subcontractor/principal defaults, the surety will generally step in and complete the work that the subcontractor failed to perform. Unlike insurance, a bond requires a subcontractor that obtains a bond to execute an indemnity agreement with the surety guaranteeing that any losses or expenses incurred by the surety will be reimbursed by the subcontractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---

Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

December 17, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, we beat the constant drum that “the contract is king” and “draft a good and well-worded construction contract” consistently. As a Virginia construction attorney, I stand by these statements and fully endorse a well-written construction contract. Such a contract will set expectations and provide the rules for your deal (particularly in the commercial context). Without this solid foundation (yes, I see the potential construction pun), when there are issues on the job site, there will be no baseline for how to resolve those issues. That said, I am also reminded on an almost daily basis that humans interact with these contracts. People negotiate the contracts and are the main forces that drive the success (or failure) of the construction project. Money is involved (often a lot of it) and there can at times be temptations to try and squeeze one last dollar out of the job despite what the contract says. Even the strongest contract cannot act as real-time protection against one party that refuses to comply with the contract and its performance or payment terms. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

No Expert Testimony for You: Maryland Federal Court Deems Expert Testimony Inadmissible

February 25, 2025 — Katherine Q. Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Rich v. Plumbing No. 1:23-cv-00705-SAG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2263, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered two motions for summary judgment, each arguing that the court should exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. Although the court allowed the plaintiff to file a supplemental brief, it ultimately granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Consequently, the court deemed the testimony of the plaintiff’s one and only expert inadmissible. The plaintiff, Whitney Rich, on behalf of C.W., brought this action after her young infant, C.W., suffered severe burns from a bathtub in their rental property. The plaintiff alleged that the landlord, Marilyn L. Dennison (Landlord), and the plumbing company, Dennison Plumbing & Heating, were liable for C.W.’s injuries because the excessively hot water temperature in the rental property resulted in the burns. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Q. Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Kahana Feld Texas Team Obtains a Summary Judgment Motion

April 08, 2025 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce partner Elliott Wright and senior attorney Farrah Ahmed received a Traditional Summary Judgment motion on a premises liability case in the 40th Judicial District Court in Ellis County, Texas. The matter involved a Claimant who slipped and fell in a restaurant and claimed over $100,000 in medical damages. During an intense line of questioning, Kahana Feld attorneys Wright and Ahmed were able to get the Claimant to admit that she saw a well-placed “Caution” sign prior to her fall. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

---

Massive US Storm Spawns Tornadoes, Wildfires, Leaving at Least 32 Dead

April 15, 2025 — Associated Press - Bloomberg
TYLERTOWN, Miss. (AP) — Unusually vicious and damaging weather across multiple U.S. states spawned violent tornadoes, blinding dust storms and fast-moving wildfires over the weekend, leaving at least 39 people dead. In the latest tally of the destruction, the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management said Sunday evening that more than 400 homes were damaged as wildfires swept across the state Friday. At least 74 homes in and around Stillwater were destroyed by wildfires, Mayor Will Joyce said Sunday night on Facebook. The emergency management department also said the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner confirmed four fatalities related to the fires or high winds. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

---

GRSM Multi-Office Team Secures Dismissal of Claims for Global Paint and Coatings Manufacturer Under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

February 03, 2025 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Philadelphia Partners Ty Havey and Cathy Slavin, Sacramento Senior Counsel Jennifer Paez, and Associate Erica Briggs successfully defended a leading global manufacturer of premium paint and coating products in a high-stakes case brought under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. § 1261 et seq. On November 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims against the firm’s client. The case, brought by a subrogating insurance carrier and its policyholders—a vineyard and winery—arose from a total loss structure fire in Sonoma County. The plaintiffs alleged that discarded rags soaked with the client’s wood stain product spontaneously combusted due to inadequate labeling. The GRSM team denied the spontaneous combustion claim and argued that the FHSA, which governs product labeling for hazardous substances, preempted plaintiffs’ claims for additional warnings about spontaneous combustion. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

---