Anaheim California Expert Witness Engineer Directory

PSA: Be Sure to Document (Even When Time is Short)

April 14, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Written change orders are a big deal. Almost all construction contracts (at least the well drafted ones) require written contracts. Written change orders are even important enough that Virginia law requires these provisions in residential construction contracts. Why are they so important? Because they are a “mini-contract” of sorts. They set the expectations, price, time, and work to be performed; work that was not included in the original price or scope for the project. Without this in writing, there will be no record of what the parties agreed to do. Does this sound familiar? Sound like its own contract? It should. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision

April 20, 2026 — Tara Martens Miller - Snell & Wilmer
The Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ward v. Bishop Constr., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 51118, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 31, 2025) offers valuable guidance for contractors and construction attorneys navigating the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA). The December 2025 ruling clarifies critical questions about when and how defendants may raise contractor registration defenses, the weight of pretrial stipulations, and the consequences of procedural missteps in construction litigation. This article examines the key takeaways from the decision and offers practical actions for consideration by those working in Idaho’s construction industry. The Facts Behind the Dispute The case arose from a long-standing working relationship between cousins Joel Ward and Ren Bishop dating to the 1990s. Ward performed general construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC, including building, plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, and siding work on projects in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bishop agreed to pay Ward $10 per hour, later increased to $12 per hour, plus one-way travel expenses. Between 2017 and 2019, Ward worked over 1,100 hours but was never paid, totaling $12,443.54 in claimed damages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com

End of an (Endangerment) Era

February 23, 2026 — Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.5 Reprinted courtesy of Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer, Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Application of Ordinance and Law Coverage in Property Insurance Policy and Twenty-Five Percent Rule

December 08, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case involved a homeowner’s all-risk property insurance policy with ordinance and law coverage. This ordinance and law coverage required the carrier “to cover costs that the [insureds] incur as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace ‘the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against.” Weston v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2307a (Fla. 2d DCA 2025). The property insurance policy required the insurer to pay the actual cash value of the loss, minus any deductible, and “any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred.” Id. Here, the insureds sustained roof damage from a storm. The insureds had an expert that opined, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the entire roof needed to be replaced because “[t]here was damage to more than twenty-five percent of the roof, and the Florida Building Code provided that if more than twenty-five percent of the roof was damaged, then the entire roof should be replaced.” Weston, supra. The insureds also had an expert that testified to an estimate- the replacement cost of the damage as well as the actual cash value of that damage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

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

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

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

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES