Expert opinion is widely used in the prosecution and defense of construction claims. It is almost expected. This leads to questions of when expert opinion is required and what it must include. A recent dispute over the admissibility of delay testimony failed to establish the schedule’s critical path. This week, there is a case involving the need for expert testimony to establish damages for wrongful termination.

A subcontractor presented expert opinion regarding responsibility for delay, compliance with contract requirements and adequate administration of the project. The jury, finding that the sub was wrongfully terminated, awarded damages. The prime contractor appealed, arguing that the sub’s expert did not testify about damages, so there was no evidence to support the jury’s award.

Other cases this week distinguished “equipment” from ordinary construction material and considered whether a contractor could recover mistaken overpayments from a disadvantaged subcontractor. Sprinkler heads were equipment, so the supplier was not protected by a statute of repose pertaining to construction of improvements. And, the contractor recouped the overpayments despite the sub’s allegation the contractor fraudulently overstated disadvantaged business participation.