ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Quick Note: If You Want to Recover Attorney’s Fees In a Contractual Dispute, Include a Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees Provision

January 21, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you want the ability to recover attorney’s fees in the event of a contractual dispute, include a prevailing party attorney’s fees. Negotiate this point on the front end. Not doing so will hinder your ability to make the argument that you should be entitled to attorney’s fees due to a breach of the contract. In a recent case, the prevailing party relied on an indemnification provision to create the argument for attorney’s fees even though the action had NOTHING to do with indemnity. This was shot down on appeal as a party can’t use an indemnification provision to create that attorney’s fees argument UNLESS the provision is expressly clear on this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Should Post Contract Award Tariffs be Reimbursable? Why Public Works Contractors Deserve Clarity

November 18, 2025 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Public works contractors across Washington and the U.S. are grappling with a costly and unresolved question: when the federal government imposes new import tariffs after a contract has been awarded, do those tariffs entitle contractors to additional compensation? The answer depends on the contract and the public agency. Some public works contracts tie relief directly to whether tariffs are considered “taxes.” Others frame their adjustment clauses more broadly, focusing on changes in law or government-imposed costs. For contractors, the distinction is critical. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

---

SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI

March 03, 2026 — Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery. Facts Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

American Roads Are Paved With Inefficiency

November 09, 2025 — David Zipper - Bloomberg
North Carolina and South Carolina are neighboring southeastern states, but despite their similar climate and terrain, their costs of highway projects are vastly different. For repaving work begun in 2018 or 2019, South Carolina’s Department of Transportation spent an average of $375,500 per mile, more than twice as much as its northern neighbor. That discrepancy is one of many intriguing findings about state DOTs uncovered by Zachary Liscow, a professor at Yale Law School who is trained as an economist as well as a lawyer. For more than a decade, Liscow has examined how state DOTs pay for infrastructure, and he’s reached a series of striking conclusions about why their costs have risen over time, albeit at very different rates. He also offers suggestions about ways transportation agencies can get more bang for taxpayers’ dollars. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Zipper, Bloomberg

---

Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy

March 10, 2026 — Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, T. Troy Galan & Thomas Williams - Snell & Wilmer
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA. For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com> Read the full story...

---

Employer’s Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

November 18, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court held the policy’s Employer’s Liability Exclusion precluded coverage for the injured individual who was deemed to be an employee of the insured. Craft v. Access L.L.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179794 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2025). Charles Craft worked for FL Crane & Sons, Inc.. The general contractor of the project, Lemoine Company, LLC, hired FL Crane to do work on the project. Lemoine rented a crane from Morrow Equipment Company, LLC, and hired a crane operator from Skyhook Ops, LLC. Burlington was Skyhook’s insurer. Craft claimed his left arm was injured while working atop a scaffolding when Skyhook caused the scaffolding system to be pulled apart when operating a crane. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Top Developments 2025 - Issue 4

December 22, 2025 — John S. Anooshian, Paul A. Briganti, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, Alexandra M. George & Haley S. Newman - The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
“ARISING OUT OF” Rowe v. State Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 Me. LEXIS 89 (Me., Sept. 23, 2025) Maine Supreme Court, in the premises liability context, holds that an exclusion in a mobile homeowners policy for injury or damage "arising out of a premises . . . that is not an insured location'” precluded coverage for underlying negligent failure-to-warn claims. The court looked to authority from a workers compensation case, where it stated that “the term ‘arising out of' employment means that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury, or that the injury, in some proximate way, had its origin, its source, or its cause in the employment. . . . [T]he employment need not be the sole or predominant causal factor for the injury and . . . the causative circumstance need not have been foreseen or expected.” In this case, it found there to be “an immediate relationship between the injury and a condition of the uninsured premises” (specifically, a gap created by the owner-insured at the entrance to a mobile home), and rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury instead arose from the insureds’ negligent conduct in failing to warn. Separately, the court held that the property did not qualify as an “insured location,” reasoning it was not listed in the declarations and there was no evidence the insureds had resided there or acquired it for use as a residence. Reprinted courtesy of John S. Anooshian, White and Williams LLP, Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, White and Williams LLP, Alexandra M. George, White and Williams LLP and Haley S. Newman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Ferguson may be contacted at fergusone@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Newman may be contacted at newmanh@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

---

Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2026 Best Law Firms®

December 02, 2025 — Payne & Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP has been recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms.” This distinction reflects the firm’s commitment to professional excellence and its strong reputation among clients and peers in the legal community. Payne & Fears has been ranked in the following practice areas: Metropolitan Tier 1 Orange County

• Commercial Litigation
• Employment Law - Management
• Insurance Law
• Labor Law - Management
• Litigation - Labor and Employment
• Litigation - Real Estate

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---