TRIPOLI IOWA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Delay Matters: Florida’s Fourth DCA Reverses Hurricane Irma Dismissal

June 08, 2026 — Andrea DeField, Machaella Reisman & Cary D. Steklof - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The mantra “delay, deny, defend” is frequently referenced in discussions of insurance claims handling, though insurers will invariably disavow these tactics. While it would be facially improper for an insurer to delay a coverage decision to gain a tactical advantage, empirical examples nonetheless exist. This very dynamic was addressed by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals when it handed policyholders a win in Hypoluxo Mariner’s Cay Condo. Assoc’n, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4D2024‑2250 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 1, 2026), reversing a trial court order dismissing a condominium association’s Hurricane Irma coverage lawsuit against its property insurer. Delay to Run the Statute of Limitations Following Hurricane Irma, a condominium association suffered roof and exterior envelope damage, reported an insurance claim, and submitted a sworn proof of loss to its property insurer in compliance with Florida Statute § 627.70132 (2020). The statute establishes a timeframe within which a policyholder must submit a claim for hurricane damage. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Machaella Reisman, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@hunton.com Ms. Reisman may be contacted at reismanm@hunton.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

4th Department Narrowly Interprets Professional Services

August 11, 2026 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Cty. of Erie v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 NY Slip Op 04092 (App. Div. 4th Dept.), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that a general liability carrier for a construction manager owed additional insured coverage to the County of Erie, notwithstanding an exclusion in the construction manager’s policy for injuries arising out of professional services. The underlying case involved injuries sustained when the underlying plaintiff fell off of her bicycle at a park owned by the County when she transitioned from the pavement edge to grass. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Construction Attorneys: Contract Negotiation Strategy

September 01, 2026 — Construction Executive
Contract negotiation is where project expectations become enforceable business obligations. A reasonable bid can become a high-risk agreement when the final contract expands the scope, shortens notice periods, limits payment rights or transfers liability that was never included in the price. Construction attorneys help project leaders identify those consequences before execution. Their role is not to eliminate every risk or prolong negotiations. It is to determine which risks can be controlled, insured, priced, shared or rejected while preserving a workable deal. The financial stakes can be substantial. HKA's 2025 analysis of more than 2,200 distressed construction and engineering projects found that disputed costs averaged 33.4% of contract budgets. Scope changes affected more than 28% of the projects studied and remained the most common cause of conflict. In North America, the average dispute studied by Arcadis in 2024 had a value of $60.1 million and took 12.5 months to resolve. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Emerging Issues in Construction CGL Insurance Part 2: The Separation of Insureds and Additional Insured Interests

September 29, 2026 — Eric M. Clarkson - SDV Fenchurch
Many coverage disputes hinge on first principles—the fundamentals of insurance —rather than the minutiae. Unfortunately, the basic anatomy of insurance policies can get lost sometimes when parties are laser-focused on a particular term or set of circumstances. This is true not just in disputes, but also when writing coverage. One of the fundamentals that is commonly misunderstood and overlooked—but which is absolutely critical to the intended operation of insurance coverage—is what is commonly known as the “separation of insureds.” The “separation of insureds” is the concept that each “insured” under a policy are referred to and treated differently, and most of all that the distinctions matter. The concept is usually included as a condition in the policy. It embodies the requirement that the policy applies to each insured distinctly from how it applies to other insureds. The ISO Form CGL policies specifically state that they apply “[s]eparately to each insured against whom a claim is made or ‘suit’ is brought.” The separate and distinct treatment of insureds is more critical in construction operations than anywhere else. This distinction is essential to ensure coverage works as intended, especially when contracted operations are involved, because the policy must insure the subcontractor that purchased the policy, the general contractor who hired the subcontractor, and the owner that hired the general contractor. Even small modifications can easily frustrate the intent of the parties. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at eric.clarkson@sdvfenchurch.us

---

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

---

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

---

Construction Contract Negotiation & Drafting: A Practical Checklist (and Where State-Specific Issues Can Surprise You)

April 20, 2026 — Michelle Cooper - Sheppard Construction and Infrastructure Law Blog
Construction contract negotiation is often treated as a “forms exercise,” especially when the parties start from familiar templates (e.g., AIA forms). In practice, though, the biggest problems tend to arise not from the existence of a form, but from (i) misalignment among the project’s governing documents and participants, (ii) ambiguity in pricing and payment mechanics, and (iii) state-specific statutory requirements that override negotiated terms. This article includes a practical checklist intended to help owners, developers, and contractors streamline contract negotiations, reduce downstream disputes, and avoid unpleasant surprises during payment administration. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Cooper, Sheppard
Ms. Cooper may be contacted at mcooper@sheppard.com

---

Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Our Walnut Creek Team Secure Summary Judgment in a $28 Million Premises Liability Case!

September 15, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce that Partner Bryan Stofferahn and the Walnut Creek Team secured a Summary Judgment on behalf of the firm’s clients, resulting in a complete dismissal of a negligence and premises liability claim. Plaintiff, a teenager, was riding his bicycle on private commercial property when he was struck by a vehicle. Plaintiff was in a coma for 6 weeks and developed major neurocognitive dysfunction from a traumatic brain injury. BWB&O’s clients are a commercial property owner and property management company, who Plaintiff contended were liable for his injuries based on the design, condition, operation, and management of the premises. Plaintiff had demanded $28 million in settlement of the claims against all defendants. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP

---