Leo Indiana Construction Expert Witness Directory

White and Williams LLP Attorneys Recognized as PA and DE Super Lawyers

July 06, 2026 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP is proud to announce that eight attorneys in the firm’s Philadelphia office and one attorney in the firm's Delaware Office have been recognized on the 2026 Super Lawyers® and Rising Star lists. This recognition highlights our attorney's exceptional legal acumen and their commitment to client service excellence. Lawyers are selected for inclusion in Pennsylvania and Delaware Area Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars through a process that considers independent research, peer recognition and the professional achievements of attorneys from more than 70 practice areas. Approximately 2.5% of lawyers in each state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers® to receive this honor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

White and Williams LLP Ranked in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide

June 15, 2026 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP is proud to celebrate the Chambers USA 2026 Guide which has ranked several of the Firm's attorneys and practice groups, underscoring the Firm's overall commitment to providing client service excellence. The Chambers USA 2026 Guide recognized attorneys Tim Davis, Managing Partner, and Nancy Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate Group, for Real Estate: Finance in the state of Pennsylvania. Randy Maniloff, Partner, Patricia Santelle, Chair Emeritus/Former Managing Partner, and Robert Walsh, Partner were ranked for Insurance in Pennsylvania, and Thomas Pinney, Partner, was ranked in Pennsylvania for Bankruptcy/Restructuring. In the state of Maryland, Partners David Gilliss and Eric Korphage were recognized for their work in Construction. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

LA Scores Major Victory in a High-Exposure Premises Liability Action

July 06, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Our firm is proud to announce a decisive defense victory obtained by Partner Daniel Crespo and Associate Lauren Landau for our client in a high-exposure premises liability action arising from a 2022 incident at an active school construction site in Perris, California. On March 10, 2026, the Riverside County Superior Court granted Summary Judgment in full for our client, dismissing all claims brought by Plaintiff, who alleged she tripped and fell over a curb while picking up her daughter from school and sustained ankle and wrist injuries as a result. Through meticulous preparation and the strategic use of construction plans, contractual documents, and onsite surveillance video evidence, our team demonstrated that our client had no ownership, possession, or control over the portion of the existing sidewalk where the incident occurred, with construction plans unambiguously designating the area as pre-existing concrete outside our client’s scope of work, and the Construction Services Agreement expressly reserving control over all existing site improvements to the school district. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Lienor Dealing With “Show Cause” Summons by Condominium Unit Owner

September 01, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the statutory vehicles to shorten a construction lienor’s statute of limitations to foreclose on a construction lien is through a “show cause” summons that essentially requires the lienor to foreclose on the lien within 20 days from receipt of the “show cause” summons. This is a statutory procedure under Florida’s Lien Law in Fla. Stat. s. 713.21(4). If a lienor receives a “show cause” summons and lawsuit, the lienor should, without delay, counterclaim or file a separate lien foreclosure lawsuit within the 20-day period without exception. This is provided the lienor wants to move forward with its lien. If a lienor does not, the lien will be discharged of record. If you are a lienor and receive a “show cause” summons, please immediately consult with construction counsel that can best advise you and perfect your lien rights. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Four HHMR Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of Best Lawyers®

September 21, 2026 — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is proud to announce that Best Lawyers® has recognized four HHMR attorneys in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America for their work in construction law and construction litigation. David M. McLain, Lisa Bondy Dunn, and Steven L. Heisdorffer earned recognition in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. Ricky L. Nolen, Jr. earned recognition in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. For a firm that has deliberately focused its practice on construction law and construction litigation for nearly 25 years, we take particular pride in seeing that focus reflected in the recognition of lawyers across different generations of HHMR. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

May 14, 2026 — Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis Brisbois
Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com 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

Voluntary Dismissal of an Indemnity Claim Does Not Make the Subcontractor a “Prevailing Party,” Washington Court of Appeals Holds

September 21, 2026 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In King County v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, No. 86503-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2025), an unpublished decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the denial of a subcontractor’s request for prevailing-party attorney fees under an indemnity clause after the general contractor voluntarily dismissed its indemnity claims. Because the indemnity claim was no longer live and no determination of fault had occurred, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the request. ACS represented Walsh, the general contractor, in securing the denial of the fee request at the trial court that the Court of Appeals affirmed. A Pass-Through Indemnity Claim That Ended Before Fault Was Decided The dispute arose out of a public works contract under which King County hired Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (“Walsh”) to construct and install a conveyance pipeline. After the pipeline broke, King County sued Walsh for breach of contract and warranty, expressly identifying both Walsh and its subcontractor, Mears Group Inc., (“Mears”) as responsible. Walsh tendered defense and indemnity to Mears under the subcontract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

LEO INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES