ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History

January 14, 2025 — Morningstar DBRS
Wildfires currently burning in the Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst and other Los Angeles neighborhoods will cause significant losses for the insurance industry, in Morningstar DBRS’ view. The fires have already burned more than 1,100 homes and threaten more than 28,000 additional structures, according to local fire officials. Preliminary estimates point to total insured losses in excess of $8 billion depending on the final number of properties being affected by the wildfires. By way of comparison, the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which destroyed 1,643 structures just north of Los Angeles, caused more than $6 billion in property damages at that time. Morningstar DBRS expects the ongoing wildfires to have a negative but manageable impact on major property insurers active in the Californian market, with the impact somewhat mitigated by their use of reinsurance and their high degree of diversification. Similarly, losses should be manageable for the global reinsurance industry and not affect their credit profiles. While leading U.S. property insurers are in good financial condition, the California property insurance market has been challenging because of high wildfire and other natural catastrophe risks combined with regulatory restrictions on coverage and pricing, leading many insurers to re-think their product offering, including an outright exit from the market. For example, market leaders such as State Farm and Allstate started reducing their exposure to the California market beginning 2022-2023. It is therefore possible that a larger than usual portion of the losses caused by the wildfires will be uninsured or may be covered under the California FAIR Plan, which is designed to provide fire coverage up to $3 million per home and spread the risk across the industry when it is not available from traditional carriers. This event reinforces the need for adequate rate increases on home insurance in California, based on forward-looking pricing and catastrophe modelling, as well as for additional fire prevention and mitigation initiatives. However, property insurance affordability is likely to remain a challenge in the state going forward, with many property owners opting to remain uninsured or under-insured because of the high costs.

---

Make Sure You Comply with Florida’s Pre-Suit Notice Requirements for Construction Defects

March 18, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Welcome to Florida! If you deal with construction defects in Florida, then you know, or certainly should know, about Florida Statutes Chapter 558. Chapter 558 contains the pre-suit notice requirements before instituting a construction defect lawsuit. They are a “must know” if you practice in the construction defect world. While I may not be a huge proponent for the Chapter or view it as value-added when you factor in numerous considerations, how I feel is of no moment. The pre-suit requirements are still the governing “law of the land” for Florida construction defects lawsuits. A recent case demonstrates this point. In Moss & Associates v. Daystar Peterson, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D509a (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), a condominium unit owner sued the condominium association and general contractor in a lawsuit grounded on construction defects. The unit owner claimed his unit was damaged by water intrusion due to the contractor’s faulty workmanship regarding renovations and repairs to common areas of the condominium. There was not a dispute as to the unit owner’s failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of Florida Statues Chapter 558. The general contractor moved to stay the lawsuit pending the unit owner’s compliance with the pre-suit notice requirements. The trial court denied the stay request. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal held that Chapter 558’s pre-suit notice requirements were a statutory requirement that the unit owner had to comply with in order to institute a construction defect lawsuit. Thus, the Third District quashed the trial court’s order and granted the stay. (“By [the trial court] instead concluding that no stay was yet required, the trial court failed to apply the plain language of section 558.003, thereby departing from the essential requirements of the law.”). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Brian Slome Named to the Daily Journal’s List of Top Professional Responsibility Lawyers for 2025

March 18, 2025 — Brian Slome - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego/San Francisco, Calif. (March 5, 2025) - San Diego and San Francisco Partner Brian Slome has been named one of the Daily Journal’s Top Professional Responsibility Lawyers for 2025. The publication’s annual Top Professional Responsibility Lawyers list honors the top-performing attorneys in the areas of legal malpractice and ethics. The Daily Journal’s profile of Mr. Slome, who serves as a Vice Chair of Lewis Brisbois’ Professional Liability Practice, details his career path over the past two decades. Inspired by a family full of legal professionals, Mr. Slome has been practicing law since 2005. He told the Daily Journal that he has been honored to represent several members of the state bar. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case

October 21, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Boston, Mass. (October 14, 2024) - Boston Managing Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Partner Matthew M. O' Leary recently secured summary judgment on behalf of a civil engineering firm in a serious personal injury matter arising from a trip-and-fall incident in a mall parking lot. The client was retained to provide site civil engineering design for the parking lot of a local mall. The design included multiple bioretention areas known as rain gardens. In November of 2019, a woman tripped and fell while attempting to cross a rain garden to reach her car. She suffered significant bodily injuries, including a fracture of the cervical spine that resulted in partial paralysis. The woman and her husband sued the mall's owner for negligence and loss of consortium in June 2021. The owner, in turn, impleaded Lewis Brisbois' client and the lot's builder, asserting third-party claims for contribution, contractual and common law indemnity, and breach of contract. In addition, the builder cross-claimed against Lewis Brisbois' client for contribution and common law indemnity. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Where There’s Smoke, Is There Coverage? A Closer Look at Bottega, LLC v. National Surety and Gharibian v. Wawanesa

February 19, 2025 — Rachel E. Hudgins & Scott P. DeVries - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
For policyholders, insurance is meant to provide peace of mind—a promise that when disaster strikes, they’ll have financial support to rebuild and recover. But as two recent cases show, the question of what qualifies as covered “direct physical loss or damage” can lead to drastically different outcomes in court. In two recent California cases, both policyholders sought coverage after wildfire smoke and debris affected their properties. One court ruled in favor of coverage. Bottega, LLC v. National Surety Corporation, No. 21-cv-03614-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2025). The other sided with the insurer. Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co., No. B325859, 2025 WL 426092 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2025). These contrasting decisions highlight issues policyholders may encounter in securing coverage for smoke-related damage and the ongoing debate over what constitutes “direct physical loss or damage,” a key phrase in most property insurance policies.[1] This article explores these cases, the influence of COVID-19 coverage litigation on the interpretation of “direct physical loss or damage,” and what policyholders can learn to better protect their rights.[2] Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@hunton.com Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

November 18, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to San Diego Partner JohnPaul Salem on his recent MSJ victory in a wrongful death case! Plaintiffs, the family of a pedestrian who was struck and killed by a train at a San Diego trolley station when he walked onto the tracks while warning lights and bells were active, filed suit for (i) dangerous condition of public property; and (ii) negligence arising out of the accident. Plaintiffs alleged BWB&O’s Client had created a dangerous condition and failed to warn of the alleged danger. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Key Legal Issues to Consider Before and After Natural Disasters

November 25, 2024 — Patrick Kelly - Construction Executive
While legal considerations are often the last thing on the minds of project owners and contractors during an emergency, construction industry stakeholders should bear in mind the impact of natural disasters on their legal rights, remedies and potential exposure to claims. For all stakeholders, two of the most pressing considerations are: (1) what provisions in their contracts are impacted by a natural disaster and (2) do they have any potential exposure to price-gouging claims? Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Kelly, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Kelly may be contacted at pkelly@grayreed.com

---

Deferred Maintenance?

December 17, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Tennessee-based “outsourced maintenance vendor” to an engine company filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking to recover nearly $150,000 on “open account,” for work previously performed. The engine company removed the case to the Federal District Court in New Orleans and asserted as a defense that the vendor lacked a proper Louisiana construction contractor’s license. The engine company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the defense. Under Louisiana law, a contract between parties is “absolutely null”--considered to have never existed--where one of the parties performed services without a required Louisiana contractor’s license, and the combined work reaches a $50,000 threshold. The engine company asserted that the vendor performed typical construction contractor work, including plywood flooring, applied epoxy to concrete flooring, erected part of a commercial carport, undertook certain heavy demolition, and installed fences, guardrails, and wire racks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---