Anaheim California Expert Witness Engineer Directory

Allegations in Insured’s Complaint Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss

November 09, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured’s complaint sufficiently pled breach of contract and bad faith to survive the insurer’s motion to dismiss. Macias v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148628 (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2025). A hailstorm damaged the insureds’ property, including the roof. The insureds filed a claim (Claim One) with American Family. An adjuster assigned by American Family found storm-related damage to the gutters, window screens and lattice work, but only non-storm-related damage to other items, such as the roof. American Family determined the losses amounted to $1,104.97, which was below the deductible. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

AI as Co-Counsel: How Litigators Can Leverage AI for Depositions, Experts, and Trial Preparation

November 21, 2025 — Debrán O’Neil - The Dispute Resolver
Artificial intelligence is everywhere right now, and the legal industry is no exception. It’s a regular feature at CLEs and in client discussions because lawyers are discovering that careful use can save both time and money. But AI is no longer reserved for e-discovery vendors. Litigators are using AI for trial preparation—helping identify themes, test case theories, summarize voluminous records, refine expert testimony, and streamline depositions. While AI is not able to read a witness, gauge credibility, or build trust with a jury like lawyers, it can make preparation more efficient and thorough and help present information in a more digestible and compelling way. Below are practical ways litigators can weave AI into their everyday litigation practice and not get left behind. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Debrán O’Neil, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.
Ms. O'Neil may be contacted at doneil@ccsb.com

Substantiating Termination for Convenience Costs

November 09, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience clause is an important provision in construction contracts, particularly for the owner. An owner needs the contractual right to terminate a contractor for convenience. This means the owner does NOT need a reason to exercise a termination. This is night-and-day different from a termination for cause (or default) wherein an owner must have a material basis to exercise that right. Sometimes, the relationship is not where it should be, or not what was expected, or performance does not rise up to the level you require but does not rise up to a material breach. The termination for convenience clause gives the owner the discretion to just end the relationship. As a contractor, you need to understand the types of damages (costs) you are entitled if an owner exercises the termination for convenience. Don’t overlook this, because if an owner exercises the termination for convenience, you want to make sure you feel like you are protected. This could include a termination for convenience fee. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished, but you need to be sure you are entitled to costs incurred through the date of termination with reasonable overhead and profit, demobilization costs, early return fees, and costs incurred due to the termination. Regardless, keep in mind that it is your burden, as the contractor, to prove these costs with a reasonable degree of certainty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insured’s Breach of Contract Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss, but Bad Faith Claim Does Not

November 21, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s breach of contract claim, but granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice the bad faith claim. Terrazas v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173920 (D. Colo. Sept 5, 2025). The plaintiff, Alejandro Garcia-Terrazas, had a policy issued by State Farm. The policy covered the abrupt and accidental discharge or overflow of water. Terrazas noticed a water discharge or overflow in the kitchen. The water caused damage to the floors, cabinets, and other items in the kitchen. A claim was filed with State Farm. State Farm investigated but refused to pay the full value of the claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Snell & Wilmer Phoenix Partner Jody Pokorski Named Winner of Connect CRE’s 2025 Lawyers in Real Estate Awards

January 21, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Phoenix Partner Jody K. Pokorski has been named a winner of Connect CRE’s Lawyers in Real Estate Awards for the Phoenix and Southwest region. This recognition highlights commercial real estate lawyers throughout various regions of the U.S., who have significantly impacted commercial real estate through their contributions to the industry and community. Pokorski’s practice is concentrated in real estate transactions, finance and regulatory matters, including work relating to commercial purchase and sale transactions, real estate financing, master planned communities, subdivision matters, and leasing. She advises large and small corporate clients in real estate matters throughout the United States. Pokorski represents developers, owners, lenders, and contractors and has significant experience handling real estate matters for institutes of higher learning and other educational entities. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

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

Washington Court of Appeals Narrows Arbitrator Authority in Construction Dispute

November 21, 2025 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent opinion, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals clarified arbitrator limits in Reecer Creek Excavating v. SRI-Rochlin Construction JV,[1] holding that consequential damage waivers are enforceable, fee-shifting depends on who “substantially prevails,” and arbitration awards can be vacated only in narrow circumstances. Reecer Creek Excavating (“Reecer”) was subcontracted by SRI-Rochlin Construction JV (“SRI”) to perform excavation and paving work on a housing development in Ellensburg, Washington. When payment disputes arose, both parties filed breach-of-contract claims and later agreed to private arbitration. Their arbitration agreement included terms mandating that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” and providing for an exception to the finality of the award where the arbitrator exceeded its authority. After a multi-day arbitration, the arbitrator found both parties partly at fault - Reecer for incomplete and defective work, and SRI for withholding certain payments. The net award favored Reecer by about $55,000, with each side ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES