ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape

September 15, 2026 — Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).) The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder

July 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable. By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

How AI Turns Construction Documents Into Procurement Intelligence

May 05, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
MEP equipment accounts for up to 40% of costs on data center or hospital projects, has lead times ranging from 20 weeks to over a year, and has historically been the most underserved area in construction software. In this episode, I speak with Victor Muchiri from BuildVision about what it actually takes to make AI useful in construction procurement, not as a pilot, but in production. We dig into why you cannot simply upload a set of construction drawings to ChatGPT and trust the output. Construction documents are complex, cross-referenced, and consequential. Without deep domain context, such as manufacturer ontologies, equipment taxonomies, and engineering expertise, AI produces plausible results, not reliable ones. BuildVision’s approach is to act as a harness around AI models, wrapping them in construction-specific knowledge so the output can be trusted for real procurement decisions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Your AI Tool Could Be Your Next Breach of Contract

October 20, 2026 — Laurie Choi & Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer
Like many industries, the construction industry is rapidly adopting artificial intelligence. AI-powered tools now help construction teams estimate costs, transcribe meetings, summarize RFIs, model schedules, and manage project documents faster than ever before. But amid this rush toward efficiency, a serious risk hides in plain sight: every time project documents are uploaded into a third-party AI tool, contractual confidentiality obligations may be implicated — or outright breached — exposing companies to potentially substantial and uncapped liability. General contractors often face strict confidentiality and nondisclosure obligations, whether under the prime construction contract or a separate NDA. This is especially true for complex projects or those involving proprietary technology — such as data centers, medical or scientific facilities, and energy generation and storage facilities. These confidentiality clauses typically define “confidential information” broadly to encompass all non-public information provided for the project, including plans, specifications, pricing, schedules, RFPs, and even the contract terms themselves. These confidentiality obligations almost always flow down to subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Laurie Choi, Snell & Wilmer and Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Choi may be contacted at lchoi@swlaw.com Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Amazon’s Latest Response to AI Data Center Backlash: $1 Billion

October 20, 2026 — Matt Day – Bloomberg
Amazon.com Inc.’s latest attempt to address the intensifying blowback to an unprecedented buildout of computing infrastructure: a commitment to spend more than $1 billion over the next five years on initiatives for the communities near its server farms. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Day, Bloomberg

---

Construction Robotics Works Where Variation Ends

August 11, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
BuiltWorlds published its 2026 Robotics Top 50 this summer, and the list is genuinely wide. Fifty solutions across nine categories, from 3D printing and prefabricated component manufacturing to earthmoving, demolition, material transport, layout, installation, inspection, and drilling. The honorees come from sixteen countries. It looks like robotics has finally spread across the whole project lifecycle. However, having vendors in nine categories does not mean that contractors are robotizing their work en masse. Zacua Ventures, in its 2026 construction robotics report, estimates that on-site robotics accounted for less than 0.03% of global construction spending in 2025. Zacua says: “That is not a failed market. It is a market at the beginning of an adoption S-curve”, while warning that its estimates rest on private vendor data and may be high if vendors overstate how widely their machines are deployed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Tony Sonnett Secures Highly Favorable Verdict for Client in Admitted Liability Case in Which Plaintiff Sought $34.5M

September 29, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Los Angeles Partner Tony Sonnett recently obtained a highly favorable verdict for his property owner client in an admitted liability case in which the plaintiff had asked for $34.5 million, with a jury awarding just $75,000. The plaintiff, who was a tenant at one of the client’s rental properties, was injured in October 2020 as he was attempting to close the heavy metal blinds that were affixed to the 12-foot floor-to-ceiling windows of the property. The blinds and their heavy metal covering detached from the wall and fell on the plaintiff’s head, causing him to suffer a scalp laceration that required stitches. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

June 23, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---