BUILT UP ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT EXPERT WITNESS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER EXPERT WITNESS GRAYLING ALASKA ALASKA ALASKA ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Los Angeles County Sues Utility Edison Over Deadly Wildfire

March 25, 2025 — Mark Chediak - Bloomberg
Los Angeles County sued Edison International to recoup its losses from a January wildfire that was one of the most destructive in California history. The suit alleges that equipment owned by the company’s Southern California Edison utility caused the Eaton Fire. The county claims it’s been saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to respond to the blaze and repair damaged infrastructure and property. The cities of Pasadena and Sierra Madre filed separate suits against Edison in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Edison is facing mounting scrutiny for the possible role its power lines may have played in the Eaton wildfire that burned more than 14,000 acres, destroyed about 9,400 structures and resulted in 17 deaths. The company already faces dozens of lawsuits alleging its equipment sparked the blaze in the Pasadena foothills that was fanned by high winds during an outbreak of wildfires that charred parts of the Los Angeles area. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg

---

Los Angeles Wildfires to Impact Profitability of US Property Insurers, Says GlobalData

February 03, 2025 — GlobalData
The Los Angeles (LA) area in the US has witnessed a devastating impact from a series of wildfires that erupted since the second week of January. There were 312 wildfires that resulted in 28 deaths and the destruction of 16,255 structures as of 29 January, with the Palisades and Eaton wildfires continuing to burn, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Estimates from the University of California suggest that the total damage from the LA wildfires could surpass $20 billion. Consequently, US insurers may see increased claims in 2025 across various insurance lines, potentially affecting their profitability, says GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company. Manogna Vangari, Insurance Analyst at GlobalData, comments: "The recent LA wildfires are expected to impose significant financial burdens on property and casualty insurers, with damages potentially exceeding billions of dollars. The destruction affects both residential and commercial properties, particularly high-value homes and businesses, leading to anticipated insured losses to be among the highest in California's history." Property insurance claims are projected to represent a 13.1% share of total general insurance claims in the US in 2025, totaling $247 billion. Incurred losses are anticipated to rise by 7.5% in 2025, reaching $193.6 billion from $180.1 billion in 2024. However, the full effect of wildfires may push actual claims even higher. Consequently, the profitability of the US general insurance sector is expected to be notably affected, with the average combined ratio predicted to exceed 100% in 2025. According to GlobalData's Global Insurance Database, the US property insurance industry is expected to grow at a CAGR of 7.3% over 2025–29, from $416.3 billion in 2025 to $551.1 billion in 2029, in terms of gross written premiums (GWP).

---

California Clarifies Basis for Inverse Condemnation Claims

April 22, 2025 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Inverse condemnation is a legal theory that is not common in the subrogation industry. However, when dealing with a loss where property damage is the result of action by a public entity, it is a claim that may be available. While there are distinct considerations with raising an inverse condemnation claim, pleading it can also have advantages over common negligence causes of action. Understanding when inverse condemnation is an available claim is the first step in such an analysis. Although it is not a subrogation case, the Court of Appeal of California (Court of Appeal) recently examined the basis for inverse condemnation claims, in general, in Shehyn vs. Ventura County Public Works Agency, 108 Cal.App.5th 1254. In Shehyn, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, Ventura County Public Works Agency and Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (collectively, the District). The Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal after the trial court sustained the District’s demurrer without leave to amend the cause of action for inverse condemnation. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, remanding the case with the instruction to enter a new order overruling the demurrer. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Unjust Enrichment Damages Must Be Measurable and Quantifiable

May 12, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Just because you are pursuing a claim for unjust enrichment does not mean you don’t have to still prove your damages with a reasonable degree of certainty. You ABSOLUTELY do: Under Florida law, unjust enrichment damages must reflect the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s labor and costs expended for the benefit of the defendant or the value of the economic benefit that the plaintiff had conferred upon the defendant. While mathematical precision is not required, damages must be ‘measurable and quantifiable’ and supported by a ‘fact-based chain of reasoning’ so as to avoid conjecture. Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D913a (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). While Alvarez is a non-construction case, it deals with unjust enrichment which comes up in construction disputes. Here, unjust enrichment damages were awarded to the plaintiff. An appeal was taken because the defendant claimed the evidence didn’t support or link to the unjust enrichment damages that were awarded to the plaintiff. The appellate court agreed finding there was no ‘fact-based chain of reasoning” that could link the damages awarded (with relevant citations relative to damages that must be proven to support an unjust enrichment claim). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

LA County Begins Arduous Cleanup, Rebuild Effort in Altadena as New Fire Flares

January 28, 2025 — Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
During a survey of fire-damaged neighborhoods and business districts in Altadena, Calif., LA County Public Works Director Mark Pestrella highlighted to ENR the Herculean effort to come to mitigate hazards, clean up debris and rebuild entire neighborhoods lost in the Eaton and Palisades fires. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com

---

Emerging Issues in Construction CGL Insurance Part 1: Continuing or Progressive Loss Exclusions

March 11, 2025 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The risks and losses associated with construction operations and property development push many insurance concepts to their limits. As a result, the construction industry has long been at the forefront of many complex insurance coverage issues and both drives but also depends on market standards to assess and adequately address risks. SDV closely monitors insurance markets for changes that impact contractors and developers, particularly through our Subcontractor Insurance Review Program (“SIRP”) services.[1] This also allows SDV to spot emerging issues in the way markets address insurance concepts critical to the construction industry. One area the markets have been moving away from policyholder expectations is Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) coverage for continuing or progressive injury or damage. CGL policies generally cover defense and indemnity for third-party claims because of “bodily injury” or “property damage.” The primary CGL requirements are that such injury or damage must be caused by an “occurrence” (i.e., an accident) and that the injury or damage must occur during the policy period. Critically, CGL policies do not require the “occurrence” to take place during the policy period for coverage to be triggered. This makes sense as there are many circumstances where injury or damage might not manifest until after the policy period in which the “occurrence” or accident transpired. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

---

No Coverage for Faulty Installation of Windows

May 06, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district t court granted summary judgment to the insurer, agreeing there was no "occurrence" nor "property damage" resulting from the faulty installation of windows. Employers Mut. Casualty Co. v. Knipp Equipment Inc., 2025 U.S. Dis. 24400 (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2025). Edwards County and Knipp entered into a contract for the removal and replacement of the Courthouse's 113 windows. Three weeks after the job was completed, a rainstorm struck and several of the windows leaked. Edwards County filed a Statement of Claim with the American Arbitration Association, claiming Knipp breached its duty to perform the work and render the services owed to Edwards County in a good and workmanlike manner. Edwards County alleged that the windows had to be removed, re-sized, and re-installed, at the estimated cost of $420,000. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Changing Your Mind, for Whatever Reason – Terminating a Construction Contract for Convenience in Florida

March 18, 2025 — Troy Mainzer - The Dispute Resolver
Owner: “You're FIRED! Please remove all equipment and leave the premises.” Contractor: “You can’t do that. We signed a contract and have done everything that has been asked – we are performing ahead of schedule, under budget, and the work quality is superb.” Owner: “Yes, but another company can do it cheaper and the contract we entered into has a termination for convenience provision.” This scenario is a common one in private and public construction in Florida. When building in Florida, you may encounter a contractual provision that allows the owner or general contractor to terminate a contractor’s work “for convenience.” What this means is that, depending on the language of the contract, one or both parties in a construction contract may have the right to terminate the agreement even in the absence of fault or breach by the other party, hence the name “termination for convenience,” or “T4C.” The reason could be that the owner found someone cheaper, that the owner or general contractor is simply not satisfied with a contractor’s work, circumstances changed, such as budget constraints, changes in project or scope, or shifts in business priorities, or for various reasons other than a default or breach of the contract. Understanding termination for convenience is critical for both contractors and project owners, as its financial and legal consequences can be significant. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Troy Mainzer - Carlton Fields
Mr. Mainzer may be contacted at tmainzer@carltonfields.com

---