TAYLOR RIDGE ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Managing Tariff Volatility in Cross‑Border U.S. Construction Projects: Practical Contract‑Drafting and Procurement Strategies

March 10, 2026 — Sara Beiro Farabow & Michael Wagner - The Construction Seyt
Volatile U.S. tariff announcements continue to affect international supply chains for U.S. construction projects. Although recent litigation has centered on the scope of presidential tariff authority rather than construction‑specific disputes, these decisions carry important implications for how parties structure risk in their contracts. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down certain “Liberation Day” tariffs as exceeding presidential authority under IEEPA. A federal district court in Washington, D.C. likewise issued a preliminary injunction suspending related tariffs—though it later stayed its own order pending appeal. And the Supreme Court has agreed to review cases addressing the legal limits of IEEPA‑based tariffs. While none of these developments arises from construction disputes, the themes they highlight—timing, statutory authority, and documentation—mirror the issues encountered when tariff conditions disrupt international procurement. The following strategies reflect practical steps U.S. project owners, contractors, and foreign suppliers can take to mitigate risk, drawing on drafting approaches now widely used across major construction forms, including—but not limited to—modified AIA agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Sara Beiro Farabow, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Michael Wagner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Ms. Farabow may be contacted at sfarabow@seyfarth.com Mr. Wagner may be contacted at mewagner@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---

Endra Rethinks MEP Design with AI

July 06, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Niklas Lindgren, co-founder and CEO of Endra, joins the AEC Business Podcast to discuss why his Stockholm-based startup is rebuilding MEP design from the ground up with AI. Endra recently raised $50 million in Series A funding and counts some of the world’s largest engineering consultancies as customers. Niklas explains why Revit’s underlying data model is too coarse to support deep automation, and why Endra built its own granular 3D data model instead of working as a plugin. He describes Endra’s “spatial AI” approach to routing conduit and ductwork without clashes, and how the platform models entire electrical systems, from receptacle to transformer, inside a single source of truth. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision

April 20, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted). The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id. In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

June 23, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Celebrating 29 Years – Thank You for Your Continued Trust!

April 20, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
For 29 years, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP has grown alongside the clients and communities we proudly serve. What began as a single office in Orange County has evolved into a multi-state firm with 11 locations across five states. Today, we are proud to be supported by a dedicated team of more than 200 attorneys and over 400 employees who work every day to deliver exceptional service and results. This milestone is not just about where we started; it’s about the people who have helped shape who we are today. Our continued growth reflects the strength of our relationships, the trust of our clients and partners, and the commitment of our team. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Five Payne & Fears attorneys have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list in recognition of their work across a range of practice areas. This honor reflects their dedication to their clients, depth of experience, and the high standard of service they bring to every matter. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

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

---