Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Court Compels Appraisal Although Coverage Issues Exist

February 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California federal district court granted the insured’s motion to compel appraisal despite the existence of outstanding coverage issues. K4 Dev. LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211337 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6. 2025). The insured owned hotel property. It was insured by ACE while the hotel was under construction. During construction, the hotel suffered rainwater damage due to incomplete roofing systems. The water damaged the interior finishes and furnishings from the 6th floor down to the basement, including 32 guestrooms. The insured’s experts determined that the covered water losses delayed the hotel’s opening by 144 days. The insured submitted a claim for the water damage, covered claim expenses, and delay in opening losses. ACE denied the claim for delay in opening losses, stating that its expert determined the Water Events did not delay the hotel’s opening. ACE, however, did pay for the repair damage caused by the Water Events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

California Supreme Court Approves of Annual Civility Oath for Attorneys, Rejects Incivility As Basis for Disciplinary Measures

December 08, 2025 — Saul Lopez - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Diego, Calif. (October 20, 2025) - Courts and lawmakers in California and across the country are continuing to grapple with the ongoing problem of incivility among lawyers. Nearly every week a new story is publicized in which an attorney is sanctioned or rebuked for sharp rhetoric in filings or combative behavior in the courtroom. The erosion of courtesy threatens not only collegiality but also the fair administration of justice. On July 20, 2023, the State Bar of California Board of Trustees made an effort to restore respect and decorum within the practice of law within the Golden State. It approved and sent proposed measures to improve the civility of attorneys in California to the California Supreme Court for review and approval. The proposed measures included: (1) changes to California Rule of Court 9.7 that would require attorneys to reaffirm their oath of civility annually; and, (2) amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct that would add acts of incivility as a basis for disciplinary measures against attorneys. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saul Lopez, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Lopez may be contacted at Saul.Lopez@lewisbrisbois.com

BWB&O’s LA Team Secures a Defense Victory for General Contractor Client in Riverside Superior Court!

January 13, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Daniel Crespo and Associate Lauren Landau for securing a defense victory on behalf of one of our general contractor clients! The Riverside Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, finding the plaintiff’s core allegation was flatly contradicted by video evidence. The Court held that surveillance footage conclusively showed the minor did not fall into an “open trench” as alleged, but instead fell after voluntarily jumping over a temporary construction fence stabilizer. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Georgia HB 676: A Bill Property Owners and Contractors Should Watch

March 24, 2026 — Robert Lafayette - The Construction Seyt
Property owners, contractors, and others dealing with mechanics and materialmen’s liens in Georgia should keep an eye on HB 676, which is currently making its way through the Georgia General Assembly. The bill aims to curb misuse of the lien process and provide additional remedies to those challenging a frivolous lien filing. What HB 676 Would Do HB 676 would add a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 44-14-366.6) to the mechanics and materialmen’s lien statutes. If a lien is filed “without substantial justification or that is not made in good faith or that is made with malice or a wrongful purpose,” this new Code section would impose a fine of $1,500 per lien on the lien claimant, in addition to any attorney’s fees or court costs incurred by the party challenging the lien. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Lafayette, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Lafayette may be contacted at rlafayette@seyfarth.com

Insured Successfully Moves to Dismiss Insurer’s Suit to Eliminate Duty to Defend

January 06, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer had a duty to defend and dismissed the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. I.C. Refrigeration Services Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221768 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025). Flory Construction, Inc. sued the project owner, Highbridge, asserting claims for (1) foreclosure on mechanics liens; (2) breach of contract; and other cliams. Flory agreed to furnish labor, materials and equipment for improvements to Highbridge’s properties. Flory alleges Highbridge failed to provide payment despite Flory completing “all requested contract work . . . except to the extent prevented by Highbridge.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Elliott Backed Venture Sues Lloyds Over Avant Cladding, Times Reports

February 17, 2026 — Eamon Farhat - Bloomberg
Elliott Investment Management and British housing tycoon Jeff Fairburn, joint-venture partners in UK homebuilder Avant Homes Group, are suing Lloyds Banking Group Plc over who should pay to fix properties that fail to meet post-Grenfell fire-safety standards, the Times reported. Avant, which faces remediation costs of at least £107 million ($146 million) for potentially dangerous cladding, argues that Lloyds should shoulder part of the bill because most of the developments were built before 2014, when the homebuilder was under the bank’s ownership, the Times reported. Cladding has become a contentious issue in the UK following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, in which dozens died after flames spread rapidly through flammable exterior cladding on the West London high-rise, laying bare deep failures in Britain’s building safety regulations. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eamon Farhat, Bloomberg

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron

February 02, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Background In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES