Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Our Walnut Creek Team Secure Summary Judgment in a $28 Million Premises Liability Case!

September 15, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce that Partner Bryan Stofferahn and the Walnut Creek Team secured a Summary Judgment on behalf of the firm’s clients, resulting in a complete dismissal of a negligence and premises liability claim. Plaintiff, a teenager, was riding his bicycle on private commercial property when he was struck by a vehicle. Plaintiff was in a coma for 6 weeks and developed major neurocognitive dysfunction from a traumatic brain injury. BWB&O’s clients are a commercial property owner and property management company, who Plaintiff contended were liable for his injuries based on the design, condition, operation, and management of the premises. Plaintiff had demanded $28 million in settlement of the claims against all defendants. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP

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...

Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem

September 08, 2026 — Owen Newman - Construction Executive
This is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects. An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist. Reprinted courtesy of Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Newman may be contacted at oknewman@duanemorris.com

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Sixth Circuit Revives Builder’s Risk Coverage, Refusing to Let Insurer Escape on a Technicality

July 27, 2026 — Kevin V. Small & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied. The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@hunton.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@hunton.com Read the full story...

Old Storm, New Claim: A Fifth Circuit Notice Reminder

November 02, 2026 — Koorosh Talieh & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a recent decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a commercial property insurer in a dispute involving the timing of notice for a hail damage claim. In Gann v. Depositors Insurance Co., No. 25-11291 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026), the policyholder reported a claim after discovering interior water damage in 2022, but its consultant later attributed all of the claimed roof damage to a hailstorm that occurred in 2018. The court concluded that the delay in identifying and reporting the 2018 loss was unreasonable and prejudiced the insurer’s ability to investigate the circumstances of the loss in a timely manner. The decision is an important reminder for policyholders of the need for timely notice under property insurance policies. Such issues can arise, as they did in Gann, even where damage is not immediately apparent, its cause is not initially known, or the cause of loss may implicate a different policy period than the one under which the claim was first made. The Dispute The dispute arose from hail damage to the roof of a commercial property in Irving, Texas. After discovering interior water damage, the policyholder reported a claim to the insurer in September 2022, specifying August 9, 2022, as the date of loss. The insurer inspected the property and determined that a portion of the roof had sustained hail-related damage and issued payment. Reprinted courtesy of Koorosh Talieh, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Talieh may be contacted at ktalieh@hunton.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@hunton.com Read the full story...

Underlying Complaint Alleges Possibility of Coverage, Triggering Duty to Defend

September 15, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute among insurers for various defendants in the underlying case regarding the providing of a defense, the Second Circuit vacated, in part, the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. New Your Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087 (2nd Cir. June 23, 2026). Mary Guzman, who worked for a cleaning company, PBM, LLC, alleged that she was injured when a glass panel in a revolving door fell onto her as she cleaned the door. She filed suit in state court against the owners of the building as well as the lessee of the fifteenth floor where the accident occurred, Bank of New York Mellon (Bank). She alleged the owners and the Bank were negligent in creating the dangerous condition that caused her injury. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Landlord Determined to Not Qualify as Additional Insured

September 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between two insurers, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the landlord was not an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. Peleus Ins. Co. v. Am. European Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 June 22, 2026). Blossom Miller sued 57th Avenue and 21st Century in state court alleging that she was injured when she tripped on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises (the “Miller Action”). The premises was leased by 57th Avenue to 21st Century. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES