COFFEE COUNTY GEORGIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

CEO/Founding Principal Nicole Whyte is recognized as one of the most Influential Leaders in Orange County by the OC Business Journal!

December 15, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to CEO/Founding Principal Nicole Whyte on her recognition as one of the most Influential Leaders in Orange County by the OC Business Journal! Why: Nicole leads over 200 attorneys in 11 offices in the Western U.S. She specializes in family law and complex civil litigation. Of those, 89 are based in the firm’s Newport Beach headquarters. Notable: Nicole was born, raised, and educated in South Africa. She practiced law in Johannesburg before emigrating to the United States in 1991. After quickly learning the U.S. Legal system, Nicole founded Bremer Whyte in 1997. Her husband, Steve Nataupsky, is a managing partner at Knobbe Martens. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

White House Explores Opening Antitrust Probe on Homebuilders

February 10, 2026 — Patrick Clark & Leah Nylen - Bloomberg
Trump administration officials are exploring opening an antitrust investigation into US homebuilders as the White House sharpens its focus on tackling the country’s housing affordability crisis. The Department of Justice could open the probe in the coming weeks, according to people familiar with the discussions. No decision has been made and the administration may abandon the effort without launching an investigation, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing non-public information. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg and Leah Nylen, Bloomberg Read the full story...

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

In the Eye of the Beholder: Court of Appeal Finds Duty of Care Owed by Owner and Contractors for Death of Minors Caused by Independent Truck Driver

May 05, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I was a T.A. for my high school history teacher, a really smart and nice guy, Mr. Reynolds. In the room at the back of the classroom which served as his office he had the picture above. It’s called “My Wife and My Mother-in-Law” and is taken from a German postcard from 1888. Depending on how you look it, you might see fashionable young lady, or an old lady. Cases can sometimes be like that: You see what you want to see. The next case is also like that. In Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 49 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of an owner and its contractors in a case involving the death of two minors struck by a dump truck enroute to a non-permitted off-site staging area. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit

May 12, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Mike D’Andrea and Associates Ruth Rasiah and Kaylah Abdullah in the Los Angeles office for obtaining a complete dismissal of their clients in a significant claim involving California’s Public Utilities regulations. After lengthy litigation, BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Claimant, Spectrum (Charter Communications), which resulted in a complete dismissal of the action against BWB&O’s clients. At issue was whether California’s Public Utilities Code shifted the common law duty to maintain certain utility equipment in residential areas within Southern California. After significant briefing, the Superior Court found that BWB&O correctly argued that the Public Utilities Code required utility companies, like Spectrum, to fully maintain utility equipment, and that private residents are not responsible for utility maintenance (even if the physical equipment is located on private property). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Colorado Legislature Considers Series of Bills Aimed at Boosting Affordable Housing Construction in Colorado — What Homebuilders Need to Know

April 08, 2026 — Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & Wilmer
On January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced a series of bills with the goals of addressing affordable housing issues and incentivizing construction in Colorado. House Bill 26-1001 (known as the “Housing Opportunities Made Easier ‘HOME’ Act”) concerns the promotion for residential developments on “qualifying properties” that do not contain exempt parcels through the bypassing of often time-consuming local planning processes. Under HB26-1001, a “qualifying property is any real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by: (i) a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing; (ii) a nonprofit organization that provides public transit; (iii) a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing, provided that the agreement requires the nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property; (iv) a school district; (v) a state college or university; (vi) a housing authority; or (vii) a local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

---

GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute

May 14, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute. The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim. GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---