ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season

April 08, 2026 — Meghan Douris - The Construction Seyt
Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency. What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong. On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

---

Tampa Team Obtains Highly Favorable Verdict for Property Owner Client in Lawsuit over Traffic Accident

March 24, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Tampa Managing Partner John Rine and Partner Nick Dareneau obtained a very favorable verdict for their property owner client in a Sarasota County trial in a lawsuit arising from a traffic accident. At the end of closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel requested appropriately $18 million from the jury. The jury returned a net verdict of just over a thousand dollars. The plaintiff was on a scooter and was involved in an accident with an SUV in a parking lot intersection. Our firm represented the property owner. The plaintiffs argued that the landscape vegetation was too tall and violated the sight lines of the two drivers, and that the height of the shrubbery violated the owner’s landscaping contract and a local sight line ordinance. They also argued that the intersection lacked a stop sign in contrast to the other six parking lot entrances, which had stop signs. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Identifying Unfair Clauses in Construction Contracts

February 17, 2026 — Curtis W. Martin - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 1979, virtually all projects were completed under form contracts. As I started practicing construction law, it seemed that most form contracts were generally fair. They were negotiated by industry groups and over the next 10-20 years they appeared to become fairer. We could and did compare provisions in the AIA documents, the Federal contract forms, and the EJCDC agreements. When we did, we found subtle differences, but broad similarities in their approach to contract risk allocation. Today many (most?) private projects are done with “manuscript” contracts – instruments tailored to the owner’s interests. And many public entities have developed their own contracts. And not all those clauses seem so fair. This month I focus on contract clauses that I consider unfair. And while unfairness, like beauty, may be in the eye of the beholder, I think that the clauses described below aptly fit that descriptor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com

---

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

---

The Economic Loss Rule and Tort Claims by Owners against Design Professionals

November 09, 2025 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
This blog post looks at the question of when a project owner, who has a contract with the design professional, may assert an action against a design professional in negligence for purely economic losses. Actions against design professional can arise under a number of legal theories, but the two most common are contract and tort. Tort claims focus on duties imposed by law, while contract claims center on obligations agreed upon by the parties. The distinction often determines whether a plaintiff can recover purely economic losses and whether privity of contract is required. The distinction between contract and tort is significant due to the availability of different remedies, limitations periods, and burdens of proof. It is normally to a plaintiff's advantage to get both tort and contract claims before the trier of fact when the same facts will sustain either cause of action, because access to multiple theories of recovery may permit a plaintiff to avoid legal or remedial pitfalls which may apply to one cause of action but not another. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 725 F. Supp. 656 (N.D.N.Y. 1989). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Riess LeMieux
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at sricheson@rllaw.com

---

It’s That Time of Year: Contract Review Time

February 02, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
My father used to make me wash the family cars every weekend . . . rain or shine. The nice thing about washing a car in the rain is that you don’t need to dry it. Once, while sudsing up one of the family cars in the rain I spotted a couple of Jehovah Witnesses making house calls along our street. As they approached our house, they looked at me, said something to one another, and decided membership probably wasn’t a good fit for our family. If my dad saw that he probably would have thought that was reason enough to have me wash the family cars in the rain. Obviously, I never mentioned it to him. This is all a rather nostalgic way of reminding myself to get off my duff. The holidays are over. There’s stuff needing doing. Whether you like it or not. Like updating my contracts. You might consider doing the same. A few suggestions: Retention For certain private works construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, retention is now capped at 5%, mirroring the 5% retention cap on state and local public works construction contracts. The 5% retention cap applies to contracts between owners and direct contractors, between direct contractors and subcontractors, and between subcontractors. So, basically, everyone up and down the construction change. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Additional Insured’s Claim for a Defense Is Dismissed

December 22, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court dismissed the additional insured’s complaint seeking a defense against a personal injury case. Piece Mgmt., Inc. v. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205589 (S.D. N. Y. Oct. 18, 2025). The underlying plaintiff, Mustafaa Dais alleged that he was injured when a glass door collapsed onto him as he exited BJ’s Restaurant. Dais sued BJ’s seeking damages for his injuries. He later amended his complaint to add Piece Management, Inc. the property’s management company, and Narway, Inc., the company hired to install the glass door. Under the subcontract between Piece and Narwy, Narway was required to maintain a general liability policy and to add Piece as an additional insured. Narway obtained the required policy from Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.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...

---