Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Wisconsin Supreme Court Finds Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provisions

September 29, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether ensuing losses as defined in the policy were covered. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ropicky, 2026 Wisc. LEXIS 302 (Wis. July 7, 2026). The insured suffered damage during a storm on May 11, 2018, when rainwater poured into the home. The insureds gave notice to their insurer, Cincinnati. Upon inspection, Cincinnati determined that water intrusion resulted from multiple construction defects in the home. In the front of the home, water entered through a gap in the stone veneer. The inspector also concluded that the damage from rainwater was not just from the May 11, 2018, storm, but damage had occurred from prior storm events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Endorsement is Void Where Compliance is Impossible

September 21, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit found that the insured’s loss of property due to fire was covered despite noncompliance with an endorsement requiring encompassing the property. 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mut Group, Inc., et al., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19156 (6th Cir. June 29, 2026). The insured, 3371 Reading, owned a building undergoing renovation. After the structure burned down, 3371 Reading made a claim under its policy with Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Ohio Casualty relied on an endorsement requiring fencing round the jobsite. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation

July 27, 2026 — Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and Williams
White and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia. To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams, Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams, Zachary Roth, White and Williams and William Taylor, White and Williams Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

Lienor Dealing With “Show Cause” Summons by Condominium Unit Owner

September 01, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the statutory vehicles to shorten a construction lienor’s statute of limitations to foreclose on a construction lien is through a “show cause” summons that essentially requires the lienor to foreclose on the lien within 20 days from receipt of the “show cause” summons. This is a statutory procedure under Florida’s Lien Law in Fla. Stat. s. 713.21(4). If a lienor receives a “show cause” summons and lawsuit, the lienor should, without delay, counterclaim or file a separate lien foreclosure lawsuit within the 20-day period without exception. This is provided the lienor wants to move forward with its lien. If a lienor does not, the lien will be discharged of record. If you are a lienor and receive a “show cause” summons, please immediately consult with construction counsel that can best advise you and perfect your lien rights. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide

May 26, 2026 — Newmeyer Dillion
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County. Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial. Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Newmeyer Dillion

Fraud Allegations Stymie Additional Insured’s Request for a Defense

May 14, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s complaint seeking a defense of the underlying case alleging fraud. Renovation Realty, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21409 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026). Mara Fortin sued Renovation Realty and others (“Fortin litigation”) from the fraudulent sale of a residence. The underlying complaint alleged Renovation “deliberately misrepresented of the residence as ‘completely remodeled’ and ‘meticulously maintained’.” The defendants, however, including Renovation, “knew from sources including a pre-renovation termite report documenting fungus and dry rot . . . that the Property harbored pre-existing material defects.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The GKN Aerospace Chemical Release and the Laws Designed to Address It

July 06, 2026 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On May 21, 2026, a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, California began leaking methyl methacrylate (MMA), a volatile and highly flammable industrial chemical used to manufacture high-strength acrylic plastics. GKN Aerospace makes advanced military and commercial transparencies, such as aircraft canopies, windshields, cabin windows, bullet-resistant glass, and spacecraft windows. In polymer chemistry lingo, MMA is known as a monomer. Monomers are like individual links to a chain. Under the right conditions they link up (react) with each other to form long-chained polymers, or plastics. MMA is an unstable monomer that requires controlled storage conditions to avoid setting off a polymerization (chain) reaction. According to early reports, the MMA tank at GKN Aerospace overheated. The cause of the overheating is not yet clear, but the overheating may have created conditions enabling the MMA to initiate polymerization, which in turn generated heat, which in turn generated pressure, activating the tank’s pressure-relief system and releasing MMA vapor into the atmosphere. Concerns about a runaway reaction, massive release, and explosion led the Orange County Fire Authority to order evacuation of approximately 40,000 residents and closure of thirteen schools. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

Idaho Supreme Court Delivers First Authoritative Construction on the Community Infrastructure District Act

November 09, 2026 — Sara M. Ajeti & Tara Martens Miller - Snell & Wilmer
On February 12, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its first authoritative decision construing the Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act), Idaho Code §§ 50-3101 to 50-3121, in Doyle v. Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1. The opinion resolves several issues of first impression — what qualifies as reimbursable “community infrastructure,” how strictly the 60-day statute of limitations bars challenges to a CID’s formation and bond authority, and whether a CID is legally distinct from its creating municipality. For developers forming or using a CID, the decision provides welcome certainty on the durability of CID bonds, reimbursement structures, and the scope of qualifying community infrastructure. Background The CID Act allows a developer to petition Idaho cities and counties to form special-purpose taxing districts that finance community infrastructure ahead of development and allow growth to “pay for itself.” I.C. § 50-3101(1)(a)–(c). “Community infrastructure” is broadly defined to include roads, sidewalks, parks, sewers, stormwater facilities, and other public facilities that have a “substantial nexus” to, and directly or indirectly benefit, the district. I.C. § 50-3102(2). A CID is formed upon petition by two-thirds of residents or all landowners within a proposed district to the governing city or county. Once formed, CIDs are political subdivisions with only the power the Act expressly grants, including the powers to contract, finance infrastructure, levy property taxes, and incur debt through general obligation bonds. I.C. § 50-3105(1). Qualified electors within the district must approve a ceiling bond amount by a two-thirds vote; once approved, the district board may issue additional bond series without a further elector vote, notice, or hearing. I.C. § 50-3108(1)–(3). Reprinted courtesy of Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer and Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com Read the full story...

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES