Crewe Virginia Construction Expert Witness Directory

Snell & Wilmer Recognized Among the Top 10 Largest Law Firms in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal for the Ninth Consecutive Year

April 27, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been named the eighth largest law firm in Orange County on the Orange County Business Journal’s 2026 List of Law Firms. The office has been ranked among the top 10 largest law firms in the region by the Orange County Business Journal for nine consecutive years. “We are proud to once again be recognized among the top law firms in Orange County,” said Jonathan E. Frank, managing partner of the firm’s Orange County office. “This recognition is a testament to the outstanding attorneys and professionals in our Orange County office and the clients who trust us with their most important matters. Being ranked among the top 10 largest firms in the region for nine consecutive years reflects both the strength of our team and our deep commitment to serving the Orange County business community.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

Snell & Wilmer Recognized With Top Honor in Ranking Arizona: Top Law Firms for 2026

June 22, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that the firm has been voted as the top law firm in Arizona for the 17th consecutive year in the 2026 edition of AZ Big Media’s Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business. The firm was again recognized in the category of “Top 10 large law firms in Arizona” which looked at firms with 39 attorneys or more. “We are honored to receive this award recognizing our team’s ongoing commitment to excellence in service of our clients, our community, and each other,” said Firm Chair Barbara J. Dawson. “We are proud to play a meaningful role in supporting the strength and growth of Arizona’s vibrant business environment amid a rapidly changing global economy.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

Ayushi Neogi Published in ADC Defense Comment on Arbitration in Evolving Plaintiff-Friendly Landscape

May 12, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel Ayushi Neogi has authored an article in the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada’s Defense Comment magazine examining the shifting landscape of arbitration following the Ending Forced Arbitration Act. Titled “Compelling Arbitration in a Post-Ending Forced Arbitration Act, Plaintiff-Friendly Landscape,” the article analyzes how recent legislative changes are reshaping arbitration strategy, particularly as employees gain greater ability to bypass arbitration in certain claims. Neogi provides practical insight into how courts are responding and what this means for defense counsel navigating increasingly complex and plaintiff-friendly environments. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Buffalo, NY Stadium Work Resumes After Suspects ID'ed in $150K Graffiti Vandalism

March 17, 2026 — Emell D. Adolphus - Engineering News-Record
Construction work is back on track at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park, N.Y., after police identifed, but did not arrest two suspects in connection with $150,000 in property damage that paused work for nearly one week at the $2.1 billion stadium project, said the Gilbane Building Cos. and Turner Construction joint venture building it for the National Football League’s Buffalo Bills. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Adolphus may be contacted at adolphuse@enr.com

New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void

February 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The 2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue. On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

Limitations of Liability Provisions in Construction Contracts: A Means to Manage Risk and Limit Financial Exposure

June 23, 2026 — Ellen Chapelle, Richard Reizen, Hannah Batsche - Construction Executive
Taking a cue from architects and engineers, construction contractors have started inserting limitation of liability clauses in their construction contracts to manage risk and limit financial exposure. This article will address the specific risks that can be limited through an LOL, tips for negotiating the LOL terms with reluctant owners to cover those specific risks, how to limit unintended consequences of an LOL (such as relieving an insurer of its obligations to cover certain losses), and approaches to setting the amount of the liability cap in the LOL. Addressing Particular Risks An LOL can address a wide range of risks, including:

Damages for delay
Liability for non-conforming or defective work
Liability for third-party bodily injury or property damage
Liability excluded by a general liability policy (e.g., pollution and cyber liability)
Liability related to intellectual property

CEO: Power Isn’t the Only Electrical Challenge for AI Data Centers

April 14, 2026 — Francesco "Frio" Iorio - Engineering News-Record
Everyone knows that data centers are voracious consumers of electricity. In fact, the U.S. is currently scrambling to meet unprecedented levels of power demand not seen since the early days of electrification and the widespread adoption of air conditioning. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Francesco "Frio" Iorio, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.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

CREWE VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES