Rochester Vermont Construction Expert Witness Directory

AI Data Centers Become City-Scale Infrastructure, Prompting New Industry Playbook

August 11, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
AI data centers are no longer just buildings. They are increasingly reaching power-demand levels more commonly associated with municipalities, prompting industry groups to launch a new framework they say is needed to keep pace with rapidly changing power, cooling and reliability requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move

April 27, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers. FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

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

Seventh Circuit Finds “Additional Insured” Requirements Met Where Non-Party Subcontractor Was Proximate Cause of Underlying Injuries

February 23, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Atlanta Gas Light Company et al v. Navigators Ins. Co., Nos. 24-2888 & 24-2889 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals assessed whether an upstream contractor was an “additional insured” under an umbrella policy issued to its subcontractor. Atlanta Gas and Southern Company Gas (“AGL”) hired United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”) to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned throughout Georgia. In 2018, USIC failed to mark a gas line in Homerville, Georgia, and a boring company struck it, leading to an explosion that severely injured three women. The victims settled their claims with USIC but did not come to terms with AGL. AGL eventually did settle with the victims, but only after they sued AGL in Georgia state court (the “Underlying Suits”). AGL’s service agreement with USIC required USIC to obtain primary and excess liability insurance coverage that included AGL as an additional insured. Because USIC’s settlement with the victims exhausted its primary policy, AGL tendered the defense and indemnification of the Underlying Suits to USIC’s excess insurer, Navigators. Navigators denied the request on the ground that AGL was not an “additional insured” under the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

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...

Meet BWB&O’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars in Colorado!

April 08, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is thrilled to share that Partner Devin Brunson and Associate Melissa Youngpeter have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 Colorado Rising Stars list. This recognition reflects their exceptional work in Personal Injury and Civil Litigation.

SUPER LAWYERS RISING STARS

Devin Brunson: 2024-2026

Melissa Youngpeter: 2026

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage

April 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025). The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

HHMR and Every One of its Partners Recognized by Legal 500 in Denver Elite – Real Estate

April 20, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is pleased to announce its recognition as a Tier 1 firm in the Denver Elite rankings for Real Estate, a category that includes construction law and construction litigation, by The Legal 500. In addition, each of the firm’s partners has been individually recognized in the same rankings. The firm’s individual recognitions include:

David M. McLain — Tier 1
Ricky L. Nolen, Jr. — Tier 2
Lisa Bondy Dunn — Tier 3

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

ROCHESTER VERMONT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES