Dudley Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

Suit Limitation Provision Eliminates Wind Loss Claim

July 27, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted after the insured failed to file suit against the insurer within the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision. Interstate Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98108 (S.D. N. Y. May 4, 2026). On or before June 27, 2023, a wind, hail and rainstorm damaged Interstate’s property in Oklahoma. Interstate filed a claim under its policy with Mt. Hawley. The policy provided that New York law applied and contained a two- year suit limitation provision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Angela Zanin Featured in LACBA List of Women’s History Month Honorees

March 17, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Los Angeles Partner Angela Zanin was recently honored for her leadership and diversity initiatives in the California legal community by the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) as part of the organization’s Women’s History Month initiative. LACBA highlighted Ms. Zanin’s efforts in the community. After serving as President of the Italian American Lawyers Association (IALA) in 2023, she co-founded the Los Angeles County Unity Bar (LACUB), an alliance of bar associations dedicated to promoting diversity in the judiciary. Consisting of ten member organizations, the LACUB takes pride in its endorsement of over 40 candidates appointed to the California Court of Appeal, U.S. District Courts, Los Angeles Superior Court, and Orange County Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

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

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

GRSM Secures Complete Judgment for Defense in Years-Long Dispute Spanning Multiple Venues

June 22, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Hartford, Connecticut, and Dallas offices recently secured a complete defense judgment and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an arbitration on behalf of a longtime client, concluding a dispute that lasted several years and traversed multiple jurisdictions. The dispute initially arose in Texas state court, and almost immediately, the claimant began pursuing the matter aggressively, a pattern that continued until the day judgment was entered in GRSM’s client’s favor. GRSM’s team mounted a strong defense, achieving an early success in compelling mandatory arbitration. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

GRSM Team Obtains Defense Verdict for Homeowners’ Association in Orange County Superior Court

July 20, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
A Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani multi-state team, including Partners Christine Barker, Sean Ferron, and Keith Cramer, obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a homeowners’ association (HOA) in an Orange County Superior Court bench trial spanning two months. The case began in 2022 when a homeowner sued after the Architectural Review Committee and HOA Board of Directors declined his teardown-and-rebuild plans due to view and aesthetic concerns. After a motion for summary judgment ruling in which the court found that the existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) did not protect views, the HOA held a special election to add explicit view protections to the CC&Rs. At the February 2025 trial call, the plaintiff sought leave to file a third amended complaint challenging the validity of that vote, drastically reframing the case from CC&R enforcement to one of election validity. A second plaintiff then filed a parallel action toward the end of the limitations period, and the two cases were consolidated. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Insurer Cannot Raise Issues on Appeal that Were Not Presented to the Trial Court

June 15, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment on a collapse claim for the insured, rejecting the insurer’s arguments that were not presented to the trial court. Homeowner’s Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins, Co. v. Oakes, 2026 Fl. App. LEXIS 2086 (Fl. Ct. App. March 18, 2026). The insured’s ceiling collapsed in the secondary home on the insured’s property. The claim was reported to the insurer, but coverage was denied after its investigation. The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract. Under the Additional Coverage provisions of the policy, collapse was covered if it was “abrupt.” An abrupt collapse was not covered, however, if exclusions for “Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot” and “faulty, inadequate or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, materials or maintenance” applied. The collapse provisions contained no language stating that the coverage granted in the provision was also subject to all the other exclusions in the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

August 11, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

DUDLEY MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES