SMITHFIELD OHIO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape

September 15, 2026 — Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).) The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Prevents Coverage for Collapse

April 27, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the insurer after agreeing that the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause barred coverage. Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 Iii. App. Unpub. LEXIS 133 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026). One of the brick veneer walls of the Lido Motel collapsed during a windstorm. Lido reported the loss it its insurer, AIX. AIX investigated and determined that the brick veneer collapsed due to pervasive wear and tear and corrosion of the underlying infrastructure that secured the veneer- specifically the components that anchored or tied the masonry veneer to the underlying wooden substrate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions

May 12, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Contract drafting and interpretation matters. A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language. But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:

Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Structural Engineer Claims Reinforcement Was Never Installed on Troubled NYC Tower

September 01, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
New York City has expanded its investigation into the structural failure at the former Pfizer headquarters tower in Midtown Manhattan as the Dept. of Investigation confirmed a parallel inquiry and the Dept. of Buildings directed the property owner to retain third-party engineering oversight. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins

May 12, 2026 — Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLP
Three weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins. White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Reprinted courtesy of Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

August 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com

---

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

August 11, 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

---

The AI Knows Too Much: When Employees Feed Trade Secrets into Generative AI Tools

April 14, 2026 — Kazim A. Naqvi & John V. Mysliwiec - Sheppard
Every time an employee pastes proprietary source code, a customer list, or a confidential business strategy into ChatGPT, Claude, or Google Gemini, they may be quietly dismantling the legal protections that make those secrets worth protecting. Courts and regulators are only beginning to grapple with this problem, and right now, the burden of preventing it falls squarely on employers. The Legal Stakes Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) as adopted across most states, a trade secret plaintiff must show that the information at issue was subject to reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy. Courts have historically credited measures like confidentiality agreements, physical access controls, and employee training—but those safeguards were designed for a world of thumb drives and disgruntled employees. They were not built for a world where a well-meaning engineer can, in seconds, transmit an entire corpus of proprietary data to a third-party AI platform operating under terms of service that may permit the provider to use inputs for model training. Reprinted courtesy of Kazim A. Naqvi, Sheppard and John V. Mysliwiec, Sheppard Mr. Naqvi may be contacted at knaqvi@sheppard.com Mr. Mysliwiec may be contacted at jmysliwiec@sheppard.com Read the full story...

---