Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

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

HHMR Honored as a 2026 Denver Business Journal Best Places to Work Recipient

March 10, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
We are pleased to share that Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell has been named a 2026 Denver Business Journal Best Places to Work honoree, a recognition grounded entirely in direct feedback from our own team members. The Denver Business Journal Best Places to Work program, in partnership with Quantum Workplace, ranks organizations based on anonymous employee engagement survey results that measure culture, leadership, communication, trust, team dynamics, and satisfaction. This year’s list includes 65 companies across the Denver metropolitan area, judged by the people who know these workplaces best: their employees. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

July 13, 2026 — Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction Seyt
Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

May 12, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site. This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it. The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Limitations of Liability Provisions in Construction Contracts: A Means to Manage Risk and Limit Financial Exposure

June 23, 2026 — Ellen Chapelle, Richard Reizen, Hannah Batsche - Construction Executive
Taking a cue from architects and engineers, construction contractors have started inserting limitation of liability clauses in their construction contracts to manage risk and limit financial exposure. This article will address the specific risks that can be limited through an LOL, tips for negotiating the LOL terms with reluctant owners to cover those specific risks, how to limit unintended consequences of an LOL (such as relieving an insurer of its obligations to cover certain losses), and approaches to setting the amount of the liability cap in the LOL. Addressing Particular Risks An LOL can address a wide range of risks, including:

Damages for delay
Liability for non-conforming or defective work
Liability for third-party bodily injury or property damage
Liability excluded by a general liability policy (e.g., pollution and cyber liability)
Liability related to intellectual property

Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions

May 12, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Contract drafting and interpretation matters. A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language. But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:

Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.

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

Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage

April 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025). The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

May 14, 2026 — Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocs
Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES