LIMESTONE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Five Payne & Fears attorneys have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list in recognition of their work across a range of practice areas. This honor reflects their dedication to their clients, depth of experience, and the high standard of service they bring to every matter. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

July 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:

Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”

Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).

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

---

Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners

July 27, 2026 — Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & Wilmer
On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024. Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

---

GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute

May 14, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute. The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim. GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Sixth Circuit Revives Builder’s Risk Coverage, Refusing to Let Insurer Escape on a Technicality

July 27, 2026 — Kevin V. Small & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied. The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@hunton.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Court Compels Appraisal Although Coverage Issues Exist

February 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California federal district court granted the insured’s motion to compel appraisal despite the existence of outstanding coverage issues. K4 Dev. LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211337 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6. 2025). The insured owned hotel property. It was insured by ACE while the hotel was under construction. During construction, the hotel suffered rainwater damage due to incomplete roofing systems. The water damaged the interior finishes and furnishings from the 6th floor down to the basement, including 32 guestrooms. The insured’s experts determined that the covered water losses delayed the hotel’s opening by 144 days. The insured submitted a claim for the water damage, covered claim expenses, and delay in opening losses. ACE denied the claim for delay in opening losses, stating that its expert determined the Water Events did not delay the hotel’s opening. ACE, however, did pay for the repair damage caused by the Water Events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

HDR Agreed to $12M Settlement With Miami Bridge Design-Build Team

May 12, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
HDR last year agreed to pay $12 million to the design-build construction contractor Archer Western-de Moya Group to settle its claims that the engineer had incompletely designed and under-designed Miami's new Signature Bridge when the joint venture committed to a fixed price prior to construction in 2018. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---