ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Why Travelers Fought a Fire Claim for Invisible Smoke Damage

February 23, 2026 — Elaine Silver - Engineering News-Record
Just 40 minutes after midnight on Sept. 27, 2018, the sky lit up over Birmingham, Ala. A fire engulfed an apartment building under construction—the last-to-be completed section of a wood-framed complex called the Metropolitan. It fueled one of the largest recorded blazes in the city’s history. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---

New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void

February 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The 2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue. On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims

March 17, 2026 — Gregory D. Podolak & Alexander G. Hopkins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case law developments and the evolution of the insurance market to ensure a cutting-edge, meticulously developed downstream risk transfer plan. And when guidance arrives from an appellate-level court, it’s a moment to take note. This is one of those moments. In late 2025, New York’s highest court—the NY Court of Appeals—had the rare opportunity to examine an all-too-routine bodily injury fact pattern and took the opportunity to closely examine the scope of contractual indemnity and its interplay with additional insured coverage in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center N., Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 07077, 2025 WL 3670593 (Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Alexander G. Hopkins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at AHopkins@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Seventh Circuit Finds “Additional Insured” Requirements Met Where Non-Party Subcontractor Was Proximate Cause of Underlying Injuries

February 23, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Atlanta Gas Light Company et al v. Navigators Ins. Co., Nos. 24-2888 & 24-2889 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals assessed whether an upstream contractor was an “additional insured” under an umbrella policy issued to its subcontractor. Atlanta Gas and Southern Company Gas (“AGL”) hired United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”) to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned throughout Georgia. In 2018, USIC failed to mark a gas line in Homerville, Georgia, and a boring company struck it, leading to an explosion that severely injured three women. The victims settled their claims with USIC but did not come to terms with AGL. AGL eventually did settle with the victims, but only after they sued AGL in Georgia state court (the “Underlying Suits”). AGL’s service agreement with USIC required USIC to obtain primary and excess liability insurance coverage that included AGL as an additional insured. Because USIC’s settlement with the victims exhausted its primary policy, AGL tendered the defense and indemnification of the Underlying Suits to USIC’s excess insurer, Navigators. Navigators denied the request on the ground that AGL was not an “additional insured” under the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Government Claiming Contract Is Void Ab Initio by Contractor Knowingly Making False Statements

January 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can the federal government declare a contract “void ab initio” or void from the beginning? Yes, if the government can “prove that the contractor (a) obtained the contract by (b) knowingly (c) making a false statement.” MLB Transportation v. U.S., 2025 WL 2962897, *8 (Fed.Cl. 2025) (citation omitted).

Where a contractor “obtained [a] contract by knowingly falsely stating that it was a small business … [the] government contract [is] tainted from its inception by fraud [and] is void ab initio.” The general rule that “a Government contract tainted by fraud or wrong-doing is void ab initio … protects the integrity of the federal contracting process and safeguards the public from undetectable threats to the public fisc.” A contract found to be void ab initio has “no legal effect,” and is “[n]ull from the beginning, as from the first moment when a contract is entered into.”

MLB Transportation, supra (citations omitted).

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

---

Bridging the Information Gap of Alternative Delivery Methods on Public Projects

January 21, 2026 — Michael S. Blackwell - The Dispute Resolver
In almost all corners of the country, municipalities, counties, and states alike have historically employed a design-bid-build approach to public projects. While the delivery method lends itself easily to selecting the lowest bidder for both the design and construction phases of projects, it also excludes other, alternative methods that may be better suited for projects that require contractor involvement during the design phase, a phased approach to completion, or partnership between the public entity and private investment. But implementation of new delivery methods has posed a problem in some areas due to a lack of familiarity. This blog post proposes a simple solution. As early as the mid-late 1990s, changes in federal procurement laws allowed for the adoption of design-build, one option for alternative delivery, for public projects. Since that time, states, municipalities, and other public entities have followed suit. Today, you can find the use of design-build, progressive design-build, A + B, CM/GC, CMAR, and P3 just to name a few of the delivery methods that have been adopted in various states. These alternatives help provide options to public entities to find the right fit for their project. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Blackwell, Riess LeMieux, LLC
Mr. Blackwell may be contacted at mblackwell@rllaw.com

---

If You Get ‘Reported to the Board’ for Your Professional License (Law Note)

January 21, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
The NC Board of Architecture and the NC Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (as well as other Boards, including the NC Licensing Board for General Contractors) have grievance procedures in which anyone – client or not—can file a grievance against you. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the Boards have seen it all before, and if the grievance is someone unhappy about a bill, or using the process to harass you for unfounded reasons, they will recognize those complaints for what they are. HOWEVER, this does not mean that you should treat any grievance, no matter how unfounded, lightly. The first thing you need to do is contact your insurance broker/agent and report the matter. Often times, your insurance carrier will hire an attorney (someone like me) to defend you free of charge (at least up to a certain dollar amount). This is part of your insurance coverage, and you should take full advantage of it. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

It’s That Time of Year: Contract Review Time

February 02, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
My father used to make me wash the family cars every weekend . . . rain or shine. The nice thing about washing a car in the rain is that you don’t need to dry it. Once, while sudsing up one of the family cars in the rain I spotted a couple of Jehovah Witnesses making house calls along our street. As they approached our house, they looked at me, said something to one another, and decided membership probably wasn’t a good fit for our family. If my dad saw that he probably would have thought that was reason enough to have me wash the family cars in the rain. Obviously, I never mentioned it to him. This is all a rather nostalgic way of reminding myself to get off my duff. The holidays are over. There’s stuff needing doing. Whether you like it or not. Like updating my contracts. You might consider doing the same. A few suggestions: Retention For certain private works construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, retention is now capped at 5%, mirroring the 5% retention cap on state and local public works construction contracts. The 5% retention cap applies to contracts between owners and direct contractors, between direct contractors and subcontractors, and between subcontractors. So, basically, everyone up and down the construction change. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---