Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Reckless Disregard is. . . Well. . .Reckless

December 30, 2025 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Punitive damages are hard to come by in construction law cases. This is because almost all construction contract cases are exactly that: contract cases. Between the economic loss rule and the Virginia Courts’ almost (though not completely) impregnable wall between tort and contract, punitive damages may seem completely out of the picture. Depending on your perspective and position on the construction project food chain, this fact can be either frustrating or comforting. However, like all seemingly immutable laws, this one has an exception according to the Chesapeake County, Virginia Circuit Court. In Sawyer v. C.L. Pincus Jr. & Co. et. al. this Virginia court was faced with the following scenario. The defendants, a church and its contractor, were sued by Sawyer over a construction swale that was built partly on Sawyer’s property. According to the plaintiff, the only permission they gave to their neighbors at the church was to allow the church to build a drainage berm that did not encroach on their property. As stated above, the church and its contractor built a swale that encroached on the Sawyers’ property. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Contractor Entitled to Defense Under Subcontractor’s Policy

March 10, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the contractor’s insurer finding that the sumcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend the contractor. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. TBR Construction, LLC, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2177 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025). Greenscape Homes, LLC was the general contractor for a residential development. Greenscape hired TBR Construction, LLC as a carpentry-framing subcontractor pursuant to a “Trade Contractor Agreement.” The Trade Agreement required TBR to name Greenscape as an additional insured. TBR was insured by Utica. Greenscape was insured by Navigators. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Indiana District Court Finds Crane Inspection Services Do Not Trigger “Professional Services” Exclusion in Liability Policy

February 17, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Crane 1 Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Continental Ins. Co., 23-cv-205 (N.D. Ind. Jan 12, 2026), the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana had occasion to interpret the scope and meaning of the term “professional services” in an excess liability policy exclusion. By way of background, Robert Coppage was crushed by a crane while at work. He was seriously injured and later received a significant settlement in a state court civil action against the company that inspected the crane, Crane1. Crane1 sought coverage for the settlement under a first layer excess policy issued by Continental Insurance Company, which included an exclusion for any “liability arising out of the actual or alleged rendering of, or failure to render, any professional services by the Insured or any other person for whose acts the Insured is legally responsible.” The underlying complaint alleged that Crane1 was negligent in its modification, services, maintenance, inspection, and/or repair of the crane. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Construction of $3B Data Center in North Dakota Spurs Annexation Battle

January 13, 2026 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Construction of a $3-billion data center on a 320-acre site in southeastern North Dakota has sparked an annexation dispute between the small city where it is being built and its much larger neighbor, Fargo. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com

Kahana Feld Earns Recognition in Five Practice Areas in 2026 Best Law Firms® Rankings

December 15, 2025 — Eva Paulson - Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – Nov. 6, 2025 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized across five practice areas in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®. Now in its 16th year, Best Law Firms provides a comprehensive guide to the top-performing firms across 127 practice areas and 188 local jurisdictions. A listing of Kahana Feld’s 2026 rankings follows: Orange County

Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law (Metropolitan Tier 2)
Litigation – Real Estate (Metropolitan Tier 3)
Real Estate Law (Metropolitan Tier 3)

New York City

Litigation – Insurance (Metropolitan Tier 3)

Houston

Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (Metropolitan Tier 3)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eva Paulson, Kahana Feld
Ms. Paulson may be contacted at epaulson@kahanafeld.com

Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test

March 31, 2026 — Catherine Maronski - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards. The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Maronski, Robinson Cole
Ms. Maronski may be contacted at cmaronski@rc.com

Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Arguing the Fees Are Inextricably Intertwined

December 02, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Attorney’s fees are a big part of any dispute. And the attorney’s fees should be because fees are a factor and can ultimately drive the outcome of a dispute. No one wants to spend $100,000 in fees to recover $100,000, so the conversation regarding attorney’s fees needs to be had early. Generally, a party can recover reasonable attorney’s fees if authorized by contract or by statute. So, there would need to be a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision in a contract, if suing on a contract, or there would need to be a statute authorizing the recovery of attorney’s fees, if suing on a statute. Then, there is authority that the party still needs to prevail on the significant issues in the dispute, as determined by the trial court (or binding arbitrator), in order to be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. (Absent that, you are dealing with a proposal for settlement to create a procedural basis to recover fees, which is explained here.) Reasonable attorney’s fees, however, does not mean you will recover 100% of your attorney’s fees. Some percentage will presumably be discounted meaning becoming 100% whole when factoring in attorney’s fees is not always a practical outlook. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract

January 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.” A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES