HOPLAND CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

1. First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
2. The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
3. The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

One Industry, One Goal: Construction Safety Week 2026

May 05, 2026 — Maggie Murphy - Construction Executive
Construction safety has long been a top priority across the industry. Yet fatality rates have remained stubbornly flat for more than a decade. Steven Carter, global health and safety director at Gilbane chair company for Construction Safety Week 2026—believes the industry has reached a pivotal moment. This year’s theme—”All In Together: Recognize. Respond. Respect.”—is a unified call to action for owners, designers, contractors and craft professionals around a shared, risk-based approach to preventing serious injuries and fatalities. In a recent interview with Construction Executive, Carter discusses why the industry must move beyond incremental improvements, how technology and AI can support better planning and what it will take to create a true culture of psychological safety on jobsites. Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

August 11, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

On Checks and Balances

March 03, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s called “checks and balances” for a reason. And, generally, it works well so long as there are clear boundaries between the “co-equal” branches of government. In Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 108 Cal.App.5th 243 (2025), the 3rd District Court of Appeals upheld a set of regulations issued by the California Apprenticeship Council that contradicted an earlier 2015 ruling of the Court of Appeals. The Associated General Contractors of California Case At issue in the case was California’s Prevailing Wage Law which requires public works contractors to hire a certain ratio of apprentices. The purpose of the apprenticeship requirements is to maintain the pipeline of skilled tradespeople on taxpayer-funded projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

May 14, 2026 — Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning Berman
A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

---

Kamran Salour Named to Los Angeles Times' 2026 Legal Visionaries List

June 02, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Orange County Partner and Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Co-Chair Kamran Salour was named to the Los Angeles Times' 2026 Legal Visionaries list, which honors the most innovative attorneys in Southern California. In announcing this year's Legal Visionaries, the Times said that Mr. Salour and his co-honorees "distinguish themselves not only through skilleand results but through an unwavering commitment to their clients, their craft and the communities they serve." "Their paths – shaped by rigorous education, defining cases and purposeful leadership – offer a deeper perspective on what sets true standouts apart," the Times' announcement stated. "Together, these visionaries exemplify a forward-thinking approach to the law, elevating both their profession and the people who depend on it." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

May 12, 2026 — Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Insured’s Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment

July 13, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment to dispose of the insured’s bad faith claim was unsuccessful. Page v. State Farm Lloyds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102293 (E.D. Texas March 18, 2026). Plaintiff insured alleged that hail and a windstorm caused damage to his property. The damage was reported to the defendant insurer. A claims adjuster inspected the property. Defendant then paid plaintiff $24,493.06, which was the total of the estimated damage minus depreciation and 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

---