Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Ball Janik LLP Elevates Construction Litigation Attorneys Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner

February 02, 2026 — Ball Janik LLP
Orlando, FL – January 28, 2026 – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce the elevation of Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner, effective 2026. Both attorneys are dedicated to their clients and have provided significant contributions to the firm's Construction Defect and Litigation practice. "Keegan and Nicholas exemplify the excellence and client-focused approach that define Ball Janik LLP," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "Their elevation to Partner reflects not only their exceptional legal skills and dedication to our clients but also their commitment to advancing the firm's mission. We are proud to recognize their achievements and look forward to their continued leadership." Berry is based in Ball Janik LLP's Orlando office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. Throughout his career, Berry has focused on complex litigation and resolving matters through arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, and trial, with extensive experience both prosecuting and defending construction claims on behalf of owners, contractors, and manufacturers. His practice also encompasses complex commercial and general litigation, including business torts, professional liability, products liability, and general liability. "I'm honored to continue serving Florida's business and property owner communities as a partner at Ball Janik, leveraging my experience to deliver efficient, results-driven solutions in even the most complex construction disputes," said Berry. Vargo is based in Ball Janik LLP's Tampa office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. He focuses on Construction Litigation, representing residential and commercial property owners in construction defect litigation. Vargo has spent most of his career in construction defect law with Ball Janik and has been instrumental in growing Ball Janik's presence in Florida's west coast. "Becoming a partner at Ball Janik is both a privilege and a responsibility, and I look forward to continuing to advocate fiercely for our clients while holding accountable those who attempt to evade their obligations," said Vargo. About Ball Janik LLP Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com/.

Successful KF Defense Results in Dismissal with Prejudice

January 13, 2026 — Elliott Wright & William "Pat" Durland - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld Partner Elliott Wright and Senior Counsel William “Pat” Durland secured a major victory for their client with a complete dismissal of all claims by establishing that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Texas Tort Claims Act’s jurisdictional prerequisites through our Plea to the Jurisdiction. Our Plea to the Jurisdiction demonstrated that governmental immunity applies unless a Plaintiff can prove a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver, and that the Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving such a waiver. In this case, we showed that the Plaintiff provided no timely statutory notice as required by §101.101 of the TTCA and the City Charter’s six-month notice requirement, making jurisdiction impossible to invoke. Without proper notice—formal or actual—the court has no power to hear the case, and the defect cannot be cured by amendment.  Reprinted courtesy of Elliott Wright, Kahana Feld and William "Pat" Durland, Kahana Feld Mr. Wright may be contacted at ewright@kahanafeld.com Mr. Durland may be contacted at wdurland@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

California Court Affirms $1.8 Million Judgment Against HOA for Failing to Investigate and Remediate Water Intrusion

November 04, 2025 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
When an HOA ignores its duties under its covenants and restrictions, the consequences can be devastating. In Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2025, No. H052560), a Santa Clara couple secured a $1.8 million judgment after their condominium was rendered uninhabitable due to water intrusion, mold, and a sinkhole caused by an abandoned well beneath the property. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding that the HOA’s delay, deception, and failure to act breached its duties under the CC&Rs. What Went Wrong at Rancho Palma Grande HOA Retirees Doug Ridley and Sherry Shen owned a condominium in Santa Clara County. In 2018, their tenants discovered persistent water pooling in the crawlspace beneath the unit - part of the building’s common area under the HOA’s control. The issue worsened over time, culminating in severe water damage, mold growth, and ultimately, a sinkhole beneath the living room floor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Soot Constitutes Property Damage

March 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Risk Associated with Design-Build Project Delivery Method

October 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The design-build project delivery method is when the design-builder (typically the contractor) is responsible for both the design and construction of the project. Thus, the responsibility for both the design and construction falls under the same umbrella and, naturally, carries more risk. The discussion below demonstrates risk involved in the design-build project delivery method, particularly in the government contracting arena:

Design-build contracts are common for construction, renovations, and repair projects, where the government provides the contractor with its requirements, but the contractor is free to exercise its ingenuity in achieving that objective or standard of performance and selecting the means to do so. It is not uncommon for issues to arise in design-build contracts. One of the more common issues is when the contract describes a certain requirement, but later during the design process, the contractor will submit in the 35% or 100% design submittal with a lower requirement. The government will unknowingly approve that design, not realizing the contractor may have “slipped in” or made an error on one of the requirements; thus, the approved 100% design has a lower requirement as compared to the contract. In these situations, we have found that the government is justified in demanding the contractor provide the requirements specified in the RFP and resulting contract.

Thus, our long-held rule has been that the government cannot properly be blamed for approving the design when the contractor failed to inform the government that its design deviated from Task Order minimum requirements.

Appeals of - Meltech Corporation, Inc., ASBCA No. 61766, 2025 WL 2166133 (ASBCA 2025) (internal citations omitted).

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

To Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical Considerations

January 13, 2026 — Gerard J. Onorata - ConsensusDocs
Deciding to settle a construction dispute is often wrought with difficulty, requiring the decision maker to evaluate a number of factors. Nevertheless, there are no hard and fast rules that apply when advising a party whether or not they should settle a dispute. Yet the vast majority of construction disputes do settle before going to trial or arbitration. In fact, recent statistics show that approximately 95% of all civil cases, including construction disputes, settle before trial[1]. However, whether settlement is always the best choice depends on several factors to be discussed here. Merits of Your Case First and foremost are the merits of your claims and defenses against any claims that are asserted against you. Construction disputes are inherently fact sensitive, and the merits of a case are driven by the facts of the dispute. Simple breach of contract actions for balances of unpaid funds for the work and materials that have been provided and installed on a project make weighing the merits of the affirmative claim relatively simple. However, these types of “collection cases” stand in stark contrast to complex construction delay claims for equitable adjustment where there exist competing and numerous causes of the delays. In addition, there are complicated legal principles applicable to whether there is entitlement to compensation for the delay or simply an extension of time. Construction defect claims where technical engineering issues are involved also present a heightened level of complexity that may make such cases difficult to prove on the merits. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

How to Document Changes and Preserve Claims Without Starting a Fight

December 02, 2025 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Construction is a team sport, but you can play nice while still preserving your contractual rights. In every construction project, changes happen and disagreements arise. The trouble comes when during formal dispute resolution months (or years) later, the parties argue about the basic facts of what the issue was, what was authorized, who knew, and whether notice was given. In formal dispute resolution, the most compelling evidence is the contemporaneous, factual documentation in the project record, but many fail to document these issues for fear of harming the relationship with the owner, general contractor, or subcontractor. This article provides practical guidance on how to document changes and potential claims in a way that preserves relationships and avoids escalation during the project itself. Here’s how to document changes (or your disagreement) to preserve your contract rights and ability to make a claim later, without jeopardizing the working relationship during construction. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine

April 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows: Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). 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