Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Reminder: You Can’t Make Others Indemnify You for Your Own Actions

January 13, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken about Virginia Code 11-4.1 and the prohibition on forcing others to indemnify for the actions of the indemnitees on a few occasions here at Construction Law Musings (See Uniwest Posts). The Western District of Virginia gave its take on indemnification clauses and why they need to be carefully drafted in a December 2024 case, Sauer Construction, LLC v. MC3 Solutions, LLC et al. In Sauer, the Court looked at, among other things, an indemnification provision between MC3, a subcontractor to Sauer, and MC3s sub-subcontractor, Bonitz Flooring Group. This was the relatively typical construction dispute where a general contractor sues a subcontractor and then that subcontractor sues its supplier and sub-subcontractors for indemnity pursuant to its contract. When faced with the indemnification claim, Bonitz argued that the indemnification provision violated the Va. Code 11-4.1 because it required Bonitz to indemnify MC3 for MC3’s actions. The provision follows the break. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

New York Team Secures Dismissal of Premises Liability Action Against Client

May 26, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
New York Associate Nicole Koch and Partner Jennine Gerrard recently secured a complete dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims for injuries following a fall in front of a client’s business at an outdoor mall. The plaintiff alleged that she was walking on the sidewalk outside of the client's hair care supply store in the Bronx in May 2024 when she tripped and fell on a broken/defective portion of the sidewalk. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her spine, hip, wrist, and both knees. She proceeded to file suit in New York County Supreme Court against Lewis Brisbois’ client and the landlord for the property. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/18/25) – Data Center Frenzy, China’s Expanding REIT Market and Tariff-Affected Construction Costs

March 31, 2026 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, relistings reached highest total in a decade, Florida State Legislature passes bill to increase the state’s housing supply, data center construction adapts to changes and more!

The data center construction frenzy and a new, potentially larger highway bill were top of mind for builders during the latest round of contractor earnings calls and financial reports. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
Tariffs and associated policy uncertainty have increased construction costs and delayed leasing and investment choices. (J.P. Morgan)
Relistings hit the highest January figure since Redfin began tracking this metric a decade ago. (Diana Olick, CNBC).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Top Developments 2025 - Issue 4

December 22, 2025 — John S. Anooshian, Paul A. Briganti, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, Alexandra M. George & Haley S. Newman - The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
“ARISING OUT OF” Rowe v. State Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 Me. LEXIS 89 (Me., Sept. 23, 2025) Maine Supreme Court, in the premises liability context, holds that an exclusion in a mobile homeowners policy for injury or damage "arising out of a premises . . . that is not an insured location'” precluded coverage for underlying negligent failure-to-warn claims. The court looked to authority from a workers compensation case, where it stated that “the term ‘arising out of' employment means that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury, or that the injury, in some proximate way, had its origin, its source, or its cause in the employment. . . . [T]he employment need not be the sole or predominant causal factor for the injury and . . . the causative circumstance need not have been foreseen or expected.” In this case, it found there to be “an immediate relationship between the injury and a condition of the uninsured premises” (specifically, a gap created by the owner-insured at the entrance to a mobile home), and rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury instead arose from the insureds’ negligent conduct in failing to warn. Separately, the court held that the property did not qualify as an “insured location,” reasoning it was not listed in the declarations and there was no evidence the insureds had resided there or acquired it for use as a residence. Reprinted courtesy of John S. Anooshian, White and Williams LLP, Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, White and Williams LLP, Alexandra M. George, White and Williams LLP and Haley S. Newman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Ferguson may be contacted at fergusone@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Newman may be contacted at newmanh@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

Don’t Ignore Prejudgment Interest

February 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to contracts, there may be a clause that provides that untimely payments shall bear interest at a particular rate. Or it may be the statutory rate. That clause will come into play when determining prejudgment interest. In ANY dispute, prejudgment interest can be an important damages component that accrues from the date of the loss. Don’t ignore prejudgment interest. The Fourth District of Florida, in a construction dispute, maintained:

“[I]f a plaintiff establishes that he sustained out-of-pocket loss, prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date of the loss. The trial court has no discretion regarding awarding prejudgment interest and must do so applying the statutory rate of interest in effect at the time the interest accrues.”

Bensusan v. Design Engineering Group, LLC, 2025 WL 3466367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

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

Time to Negotiate Limitation on Remedies and Damages Is on the Front End

February 10, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember, when it comes to contracts, the time to negotiate and enter into mutually agreed upon bargains is on the front end. And, if the contract is not negotiable, at least you know that and can make the business decision whether you want to accept the bargains and risks. If you don’t, well, you can walk away. Move onto another deal. If you do, then you make the business decision as to the bargains or risk transfers and accept them moving forward. One of those bargains and risks deals with a limitation on damages and remedies. In a recent dispute dealing with the sale of an aircraft, there was a provision dealing with the buyer and seller’s remedies in the event of a breach. (Similar to a real estate transaction or other buyer-seller scenario.) “Contract section 10.4(a) stated that if the buyer defaulted, the seller’s “exclusive remedies” were to keep the aircraft and the buyer’s deposit. Section 10.4(b) stated that if the seller defaulted by “fail[ing] to deliver the [aircraft] in accordance with the terms of [the contract],” the buyer’s “sole remedies” were the seller’s reimbursement of the buyer’s inspection costs.” Sky Aviation Holdings, LLC v. Aviation Unlimited, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2658c (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). As you can see, there was a limitation on the seller’s damages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES