Anaheim California Expert Witness Engineer Directory

Florida's Third DCA Reasserts the Teeth of Chapter 558 and the Future of Construction Defect Litigation

February 23, 2026 — Ryan C. Brooks & Keith G. Salhab - Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
The case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Though procedurally narrow, the ruling reflects an increasingly assertive appellate stance. Chapter 558's pre-suit notice and right-to-repair process is mandatory, jurisdictional in effect, and not subject to dilution by trial-level discretion. At its core, the opinion reinforces a foundational principle. Florida intends for construction defect disputes to be managed, investigated, and often resolved before they reach a courtroom. The Third DCA's insistence on strict statutory compliance signals to trial courts, and to the plaintiffs' bar, that procedural shortcuts will not be tolerated. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan C. Brooks, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP and Keith G. Salhab, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Mr. Brooks may be contacted at rbrooks@wshblaw.com Mr. Salhab may be contacted at ksalhab@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

Ninth Circuit Issues Injunction Halting SB 261 Climate Disclosure Laws

December 22, 2025 — Michael S. McDonough & Karen Eskander - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction temporarily halting the implementation of California’s SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, just weeks before the law’s first mandated disclosures on January 1, 2026. The court declined to stay California’s companion climate emissions disclosure bill, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253), due to that bill’s less immediately pressing compliance deadline of August 2026. Background on California Climate Disclosure Laws As we have discussed in previous posts, California enacted two comprehensive climate disclosure laws in 2023. The Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) impose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk reporting requirements that apply to thousands of public and private companies formed under U.S. law and “doing business in California.” The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has released a preliminary list of companies it believes may be subject to the state’s new climate disclosure regime. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury and Karen Eskander, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Eskander may be contacted at karen.eskander@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

The Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas Explosion

March 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a recent Seventh Circuit decision, Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Navigators Insurance Company, the court addressed a theme that policyholders are often confronted with by insurers[1] – insurers disputing additional insured coverage where the named insured is not named in the underlying action. The court aptly rejected this position since it was undisputed that the bodily injuries alleged in the underlying lawsuits were due to a gas explosion that was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the named insured’s acts or omissions. I. Background The additional insureds, Atlanta Gas Light Company and Southern Company Gas (collectively, “AGL”), retained the named insured, United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”), to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned in Georgia. USIC failed to mark a certain gas line, which was later struck by a boring company, leading to an explosion that injured three people. Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

How to Properly Fill Out and Use the Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment Form Used in California Construction

January 05, 2026 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
This is the fourth article in a series of four articles discussing how to properly fill out the four California construction releases described in California Civil Code 8132 – 8138. Let me start by noting that in addition to practicing construction law for more than 35 years, I chaired the committee of California construction attorneys who revised those sections of the California Civil Code dealing with this release form and many other construction forms as part of Senate Bill 189 in 2010. I also wrote the first version of this release form and made it free to the public well before the new law took effect in 2012. With this background, let me note a few things about the Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment form to help you avoid mistakes that might prevent you from achieving the intended effect of the form or releasing claim rights to a greater extent than you intend. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Benchmark Litigation Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Offices and Attorneys in 2026 Rankings

December 02, 2025 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX - Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Benchmark Litigation, a publication that focuses exclusively on dispute resolution and litigation, has once again recognized multiple Snell & Wilmer offices, as well as eleven of the firm’s attorneys, in its annual U.S. edition rankings issue. Benchmark Litigation is the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation work. Benchmark compiles its results from a culmination of a six-month research period where researchers conduct extensive interviews with litigators and their clients to identify the leading litigators and firms. During these interviews, researchers examine recent casework handled by law firms and ask individual litigators to offer their professional opinions on peers. Firms cannot pay to be recommended for the guide. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

A Couple of Mechanic’s Lien Bills in VA [UPDATED]

February 23, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, its that time of year again, the Virginia General Assembly is in session and looking to make changes to all kinds of things here in the Commonwealth. While most of those changes are well outside of the subject of Construction Law Musings, changes to the mechanic’s lien statutes certainly are not. This year, the Virginia General Assembly is poised to make some big changes if certain legislation gets out of committee and passes the legislature, a description and some comments on these follow: HB752 – Mechanics’ liens; liens attaching to property; memorandum of lien. [Original Description] Removes the exclusion of the attachment of a mechanic’s lien to property improved or repaired when the lien is based on a claim for repairs or existing structures. The bill further removes (i) the ability of a lien claimant to file any number of memoranda of lien including the details relating to the lien and (ii) the provisions of the Code specifying that no memorandum filed shall include sums due for (a) labor or materials furnished more than 150 days prior to the last day labor was performed or (b) material furnished to the job preceding the filing of such memorandum. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

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

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES