ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Evolution of Construction Jobsite Safety: Lessons From the Field

May 19, 2025 — Milwaukee Tool - Construction Executive
Each year, Construction Safety Week offers the construction industry an opportunity to pause and refocus on the most important goal: ensuring every worker returns home safely. Mike Spensieri, who leads jobsite safety initiatives at Milwaukee Tool, shared observations from the field about how safety engagement is evolving—and where it needs to go next. BROADENING THE CONVERSATION AROUND SAFETY Spensieri’s work spans personal protective equipment and safer tool usage practices. Throughout the year, his team works with contractors and safety directors to support jobsite safety programs across the country. “During Safety Week, we focus more directly on tradespeople themselves,” he explained. “We meet crews where they are—from small sites to megaprojects—and talk about real-world practices: everything from ergonomic tool use to OSHA dust regulations.” Reprinted courtesy of Milwaukee Tool, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Dispositive Motions in AAA Construction Arbitration: Why You Should Think Twice

September 30, 2025 — Lisa Colon - The Dispute Resolver
When involved in a construction arbitration under the AAA rules, the urge to file a dispositive motion can be strong. After all, wouldn't it be beneficial to eliminate your opponent's case early and save the time and expense of a full hearing? However, before drafting that motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, take a moment to consider if it's truly the best strategic choice. The AAA's Measured Approach to Dispositive Motions The AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules adopt a notably cautious stance toward dispositive motions. Rule R-34 states that arbitrators may allow such motions "upon prior written application," but only after evaluating "the time and cost associated with the briefing of a dispositive motion." The rule explicitly mandates that arbitrators consider whether permitting the motion aligns with "the goal of achieving an efficient and economical resolution of the dispute." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Colon, Saul Ewing LLP
Ms. Colon may be contacted at lisa.colon@saul.com

---

When Delays Cost More Than Time: Understanding Consequential Damages

July 29, 2025 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
When I draft and negotiate construction contracts—whether representing contractors, subcontractors, or owners—there’s always one provision that seems to get special attention: the waiver of consequential damages. For good reason. It can significantly impact both parties’ exposure if things go sideways on a project. So what are “consequential damages,” and why do they matter? Consequential damages are losses that don’t flow directly from a breach, but arise as a secondary result of it. For an owner, this might include lost profits from project delays, loss of use or lost rental income. For a contractor, it might be loss of bonding capacity, lost business opportunities, or financing issues if the project goes off track. This is why the AIA contracts and many custom forms include a “waiver of consequential damages” clause. Consider the industry standard provision from AIA A201-2017, Section 15.1.7, which reads:

The Contractor and Owner waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract. This mutual waiver includes: (1) damages incurred by the Owner for rental expenses, for losses of use, income, profit, financing, business and reputation, and for loss of management or employee productivity or of the services of such persons; and (2) damages incurred by the Contractor for principal office expenses including the compensation of personnel stationed there, for losses of financing, business and reputation, and for loss of profit except anticipated profit arising directly from the Work.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

---

GRSM Ranks Among World’s 70 Largest Law Firms in 2025 Global 200 Rankings

October 06, 2025 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has advanced to the 67th largest law firm in the world by headcount on the 2025 Global 200 list. The firm also ranked 86th on the list by revenue. These rankings highlight the firm’s ongoing growth and expanding market position. The 2025 Global 200, published by Law.com International, ranks the world’s largest law firms based on attorney headcount and revenue. Since 2020, GRSM has climbed 38 spots in both categories, an achievement that reflects the firm’s sustained strategic expansion and commitment to serving clients nationwide. “It is an honor to be recognized among the world’s largest law firms,” said Dion Cominos, Firmwide Managing Partner. “Our growth continues to be driven by the evolving needs of our clients and the strength of our 50-state platform, which enables us to deliver the reach of a national firm and the local capabilities of a regional firm.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Insured's Challenge to Use of Xactimate Software to Determine Repair Costs for Damage Fails

June 02, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the insured's complaint challenging the use of Xactimate to determine the repair costs for fire damage was granted. Belotti v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54471 (M.D. Pa. March 25, 2025). Plaintiffs' home was damaged by fire. After submitting a claim to State Farm, a claim specialist visited the site to inspect the loss. State Farm also hired a contractor, Edward Gieda, to assist with the plaintiffs' claims. Mr, Gieda sent his initial draft estimate to State Farm. Mr. Gieda's initial draft estimate and State Farm's estimate used an estimating software tool, Xactimate. State Farm selected Xactimate's "new construction" labor efficiency for the estimate. The "new construction" tool was selected because the plaintiffs' home would not be occupied during the repair work and because once demolition was completed and the wall finishes removed, the repair would would essentially be new construction. State Farm estimated the Replacement Cost Value (RCV) to be $172,015.39 and the Actual Cash Value (ACV) payment, after applying the policy's deductible, to be $130,852.61. State Farm sent a check of $130,852.61. The plaintiffs' public adjuster provided State Farm with a repair estimate he prepared with a RCV of $374,069.77. The public adjuster's estimate also used Xactimate, but with the application of the "Restoration/Service/Remodel" labor efficiency setting. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Absent Separate Covered Peril, Ensuing Loss is Not Applicable

May 23, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district's granting of summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the exclusion for faulty workmanship was applicable despite the ensuing loss provision. Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6369 (8th Cir. March 19, 2025). The general contractor hired Bob Robinson Commercial Flooring, Inc. (BRCF) to install a vinyl gym floor with painted volleyball and basketball Iines at a middle school. BRCF installed the gym floor and subcontracted the painting portion of the project to Robert Liles Parking Lot Services (Liles). Liles's painting work was faulty by including crooked lines, incorrect markings, and smudges. The general contractor rejected the gym floor. Because the defective painting could not removed from the vinyl flooring, BRCF had to remove and replace the floor and paint new lines at a cost of $181,415.39. BRCF submitted a claim for the loss to RLI Insurance Company seeking coverage for the total loss. RLI rejected the claim because of an exclusion providing it would not pay for defects, errors or omissions due to workmanship or construction. The exclusion included an ensuing loss provision, which read, "But if a defect, error or omissions as described above results in a covered peril, we do cover the loss or damage caused by that covered peril." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

ACS Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Recognized

September 03, 2025 — Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
For our second blog post concerning awards this summer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight is pleased to announce that nine members of our firm have been selected to the 2025 Washington Super Lawyers list and three were selected to the Rising Stars list. The road to being a Super Lawyer begins when attorneys are nominated by their peers, managing partners, third parties, or identified by the Super Lawyers research team. They then undergo independent research evaluating them on twelve indicators of professional achievement and peer recognition, including but not limited to: honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, position at their firm, transactions, clients, and experience. Candidates are then evaluated by other nominated peers within their practice area and selected based on who has the highest point totals grouped by firm size. The process for becoming a Rising Star is the same as a Super Lawyer, however this nomination is reserved for candidates who are under the age of forty or who have been practicing for 10 years or less. Both nominations are rigorous as only five percent of lawyers in the state are recognized as Super Lawyers and only two and a half percent are recognized as Rising Starts within the state. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

---

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Right of a Party to Oppose Summary Judgment Motions - Even Without Cross-Claims

August 06, 2025 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside) in RND Contractors, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) issued a significant published decision. The California Court of Appeal addressed a previously unsettled question: can a co-defendant oppose another defendant’s motion for summary judgment when the plaintiff does not oppose it and no cross-claims exist between the defendants? The Court answered yes, holding that a party may oppose a motion for summary judgment if it is adverse to the moving party—even in the absence of cross-claims. The case arose from a construction site collapse that resulted in injury for one worker and the death of another. The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including the structural engineer and the steel framing contractor. The plaintiffs later declined to oppose the engineer’s summary judgment motion. However, the steel framing contractor and another defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the engineer’s negligent design contributed to the collapse. The trial court refused to consider their opposition, ruling that the two defendants lacked standing without a cross-claim against the structural engineer, and granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding this refusal was error. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---