ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Five Payne & Fears attorneys have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list in recognition of their work across a range of practice areas. This honor reflects their dedication to their clients, depth of experience, and the high standard of service they bring to every matter. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

The AVOID Act: A New Timeline for Liability in New York Construction Projects

February 23, 2026 — Meghan Douris - The Construction Seyt
By April 18, 2026, New York construction litigation will operate on a faster—and far less forgiving—timeline. The Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (the “AVOID Act”), signed into law on December 19, 2025, fundamentally rewrites third‑party practice under CPLR § 1007 by imposing strict deadlines to bring subcontractors, suppliers, and other responsible parties into a case. For owners, developers, general contractors, and their in‑house counsel, this change will shift risk assessment, contract enforcement, and litigation strategy to the very front end of a claim—particularly in New York Labor Law and construction defect cases. What Changed—and Why It Matters to Construction Cases Historically, New York defendants could implead subcontractors and other players well into discovery. The AVOID Act ends that practice. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

---

Substantiating Termination for Convenience Costs

November 09, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience clause is an important provision in construction contracts, particularly for the owner. An owner needs the contractual right to terminate a contractor for convenience. This means the owner does NOT need a reason to exercise a termination. This is night-and-day different from a termination for cause (or default) wherein an owner must have a material basis to exercise that right. Sometimes, the relationship is not where it should be, or not what was expected, or performance does not rise up to the level you require but does not rise up to a material breach. The termination for convenience clause gives the owner the discretion to just end the relationship. As a contractor, you need to understand the types of damages (costs) you are entitled if an owner exercises the termination for convenience. Don’t overlook this, because if an owner exercises the termination for convenience, you want to make sure you feel like you are protected. This could include a termination for convenience fee. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished, but you need to be sure you are entitled to costs incurred through the date of termination with reasonable overhead and profit, demobilization costs, early return fees, and costs incurred due to the termination. Regardless, keep in mind that it is your burden, as the contractor, to prove these costs with a reasonable degree of certainty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

The Single Source of Truth in Construction Projects: Reality or Myth?

March 24, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The idea of a single source of truth has been a fundamental part of the digital vision in the AEC industry for many years. From centralized CAD storage to BIM collaboration platforms and, more recently, Common Data Environments, the goal stays the same. Project teams want a reliable place where everyone can access the latest information. The phrase “single source of truth” comes from database and information management practices in the IT world, where the goal was to maintain one authoritative record of data and eliminate data redundancy. As the AEC industry began adopting digital tools, the same idea was applied to project information and workflows. Despite decades of technological progress, the question remains whether “one ring that rules them all” can actually be implemented in real construction projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Chris Konzelmann Appointed to NASP Board of Directors

November 03, 2025 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP congratulates Chris Konzelmann, Partner and Chairman of the Subrogation Department, on his appointment to the National Association of Subrogation Professionals’ (NASP) Board of Directors. In an announcement posted to LinkedIn, NASP stated, “These new board members bring diverse experience, leadership, and a shared vision for NASP’s future. Together, they will continue advancing NASP’s mission to provide education, advocacy, and community for subrogation professionals across all industries.” Chris is a long-standing member of NASP and a frequent presenter at its Annual and Spring Conferences. He also regularly delivers webinars and training sessions for subrogation clients, helping them stay informed on legal developments and best practices in recovery strategy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

End of an (Endangerment) Era

February 23, 2026 — Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.5 Reprinted courtesy of Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer, Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages

March 17, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages. The Nabors Case In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Federal Court Upholds Uninsured Contractor Endorsement; Finds Duty to Defend Anyway

November 04, 2025 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of LM Ins. Corp. v. James River Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189320 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2025), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to interpret an Uninsured Contractor Endorsement in the context of an additional insured tender. After a construction accident, the owner and general contractor tendered to a subcontractor, DATO, who had hired plaintiff's employer, Star. Investigations later revealed that DATO did not have a written contract with Star for the work at issue. DATO's insurer, Arch, denied any obligation to provide coverage to all parties seeking coverage, including additional insureds, based on DATO's failure to comply with the "New York Limitation Endorsement," which requires that "you," defined to be Arch's named insured, obtain certain pass through protections from subcontractors for New York projects, including a written contract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---