Acton Maine Construction Expert Witness Directory

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2027 Southern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees!

September 08, 2026 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser have been named to the 2027 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Notably, Nicole Whyte was also selected to the Top 50 Orange County Super Lawyers list, an honor reflecting her outstanding work, leadership, and impact in the legal community. Associates Kevin Moore, Sukayna Jaidi, and Andrew Mathews are also being recognized as 2027 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Our team is being honored for their distinguished service and dedication in Family Law, Civil, Business, Construction, and Personal Injury Litigation. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP

Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss

April 20, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026). Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds. Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Modular Construction’s Hidden Risk: Where Things Go Wrong Between the Factory and the Field

June 15, 2026 — Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocs
Introduction As modular and prefabricated construction methods are increasingly adopted, so too are the potential challenges that come with them. The appeal is straightforward: faster timelines, controlled fabrication environments, and reduced on-site labor demands. But the risks that accompany these benefits are often less clear—and, in many cases, poorly defined. For example, what happens when a prefabricated component is delayed past its installation window? Who is responsible for a defect discovered inside a sealed, installed module? What happens to warranty obligations when a prefabricated component must be modified on site? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Mayo may be contacted at jmayo@joneswalker.com

Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

May 14, 2026 — Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocs
Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...

Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Five Partners 'Lawyers of the Year'

September 08, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Best Lawyers has selected 207 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 45 offices for its 33rd edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized five Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: Akron Partner John R. Conley (Product Liability Litigation - Defendants); Akron Managing Partner David Kern (Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law; Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law; Tax Law; Trusts and Estates); Weirton Managing Partner Michelle L. Gorman (Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants); Portland Partner Megan Cook (Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants); and San Diego Partner Craig T. Mann (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can also see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

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

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

Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem

September 08, 2026 — Owen Newman - Construction Executive
This is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects. An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist. Reprinted courtesy of Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Newman may be contacted at oknewman@duanemorris.com

ACTON MAINE CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES