IRONTON MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements

April 14, 2026 — Abby Dvorkin - Snell & Wilmer
The ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project. Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Abby Dvorkin, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Dvorkin may be contacted at advorkin@swlaw.com

---

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

---

Fort Lauderdale Associate Secures Summary Judgment in Rare Premises Liability Win

February 23, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Fort Lauderdale associate Kyle Hollander recently secured a summary judgment victory for his client, Winn-Dixie, in a contested premises liability case. This was a hotly disputed liability case of water on the floor near an ice cooler with surveillance footage of a customer constantly bringing bags of ice to and from the cooler to the register. The plaintiff unknowingly stepped into the area of dripped melted ice and fell. Kyle successfully argued based on the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony and the surveillance footage that Winn-Dixie didn’t have the requisite actual notice. Additionally, Kyle argued that the brief duration the condition remained on the floor was legally insufficient to establish constructive notice under Florida law. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence would not survive a directed verdict and granting summary judgment in favor of the defense. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Newmeyer Dillion Partner Jeff Masters Recognized by Chambers USA for Representation of Insurance Policyholders

June 08, 2026 — Newmeyer Dillion
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – June 4, 2026 – Newmeyer Dillion is proud to announce that litigation partner Jeffrey D. Masters has been ranked among a select group of California lawyers representing insurance policyholders in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA. This marks two consecutive years of recognition for Masters by this prestigious international attorney rating resource. "This recognition by Chambers and Partners is a testament to Jeff’s dedication to our clients," said Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. "We are thrilled to see his hard work acknowledged and the level of passion and care that he delivers to clients fully recognized." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Newmeyer Dillion

---

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

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

---

Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage

July 06, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026). Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage. The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of 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

---