Unity Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness Directory

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

A Win for Clarity: What a Recent Federal Court Decision Means for Davis-Bacon Compliance

July 13, 2026 — Stephen E. Irving - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Following the Department of Labor’s 2023 Davis-Bacon rule changes, federal construction contractors faced a pressing question: not whether paying prevailing wages is required, but how far those obligations could extend. Could they reach off-site material suppliers? Delivery drivers? Contracts that omitted Davis-Bacon clauses entirely? A recent federal court decision in AGC of America v. US Department of Labor answers these questions in important ways, vacating several disputed provisions and giving contractors greater certainty when pricing, bidding, and administering federal construction projects. The ruling addresses three aspects of the 2023 regulations that sought to extend Davis-Bacon obligations beyond their traditional scope. By vacating those provisions, the decision creates a more predictable compliance environment and reinforces an important principle: Davis-Bacon enforcement works best when contractors, workers, and regulators operate under clear, objective rules. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com

$356 Million Judgement Against Developer for Defective Construction of DC Condominium

August 16, 2026 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law Group
On July 31, 2026, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered a $356,085,513.00 judgment against developers JBG Smith for defective construction and renovation of the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium in Washington, D.C. The case is Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association v. JBG Smith Properties, et al., No. 2020 CA 004807 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). In a 148-page Trial Order, the D.C. Superior Court awarded $118,695,171.00 in damages in favor of the condominium association and against the condominium developers, including JBG Smith. The Court trebled those damages pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to reach an ultimate judgment of $356,085,513.00. See Cowie Law Group: DC Condominium Construction Defects: Recovering Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Expenses & Treble Damages Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Cowie Law Group, P.C. filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Association in 2020. The firm represented the Association throughout years of pretrial discovery and ultimately served as trial counsel with Williams & Connolly LLP during a lengthy bench trial before the Honorable Yvonne Williams. The Cowie Law Group team included attorneys, George A. Bealefeld, III, Albert G. McCarraher, Stanford L. Kimmel, III and Nicholas D. Cowie. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

Seattle’s Residential Zoning Transformation: What Property Owners, Buyers, and Investors Should Understand

May 14, 2026 — Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Seattle is in the midst of a significant transformation in residential land use policy. Longstanding neighborhood zoning patterns that historically favored detached single-family development are being reexamined in response to housing supply pressures, affordability concerns, and evolving state mandates. For homeowners, purchasers, investors, and builders, these changes may create substantial new opportunities. They also create a heightened need for careful legal and practical due diligence. While zoning reform can expand potential uses of property, it does not eliminate the many other constraints that may still govern what can actually be built. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

We Won’t Permit That Excuse!

June 23, 2026 — Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocs
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit? But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation. The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

Location, Location, Location — But Which One? The Few Words in Your Construction Contract that Pick Where You Fight

June 29, 2026 — Brad Sands - ConsensusDocs
Most professionals know the old real estate line: location, location, location. It turns out to be just as true for construction contracts as it is for property. Consider a recent case involving a project owner that hired two design firms for a project. When issues arose during construction, the owner sued the design firms in state court in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The defendants then removed the case to the federal district court in Galveston, a courthouse in a different county. But the owner wanted the case back in Brazoria County state court. Whether it got its wish came down to two words in the contract: “situated in.” This article is about words like those. A construction contract’s forum selection clause names the place for the fight nobody plans to have, and where that fight happens can shape how it goes. This article explains why the wording in your forum selection clause deserves careful reading before you sign a construction contract. It is not a deep dive into the mechanics of federal removal jurisdiction, and it is not an academic comparison of the terms “forum” and “venue.” Instead, it is a practical look at how courts actually read these clauses, so the location of a future fight is the one you intended. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brad Sands, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

Ahlers Cressman & Sleight leads in recognized Construction Litigation Attorneys

September 01, 2026 — Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight is pleased to announce its leading recognition in the 2026 Washington Super Lawyers magazine. With ten members named, ACS has more recognized Construction Litigation attorneys than any other firm on the 2026 Washington Super Lawyers list, compared to three at the next closest firm. Two ACS members were also recognized on the 2026 Washington Rising Stars list. Super Lawyers selects these recognized lawyers by using a patented multiphase selection process. First, lawyers enter the candidate pool by being nominated by their peers or by being identified by managing partner surveys, third-party feedback, or the Super Lawyersresearch team. Next, Super Lawyersconducts an independently researched evaluation using twelve indicators of professional achievement and peer recognition: verdicts/settlements, transactions, representative clients, experience, honors/awards, special licenses/certifications, position within a law firm, bar and/or professional activity, pro bono and community service, scholarly lectures/writings, education/employment background, and other outstanding achievements. Then, candidates with the highest point totals serve on a Blue Ribbon panel, evaluating other candidates within their primary practice area. Finally, only 5% of attorneys are selected for the Super Lawyers list, and 2.5% of attorneys are selected for the Rising Stars list. More information about the Super Lawyers Selection Process can be found here. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

UNITY WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES