Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

July 20, 2026 — Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury is pleased to announce that 18 of the firm’s attorneys have been selected for inclusion on the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. The annual Super Lawyers and Rising Stars selections recognize attorneys across a wide range of practice areas. This year’s honorees reflect the depth of Wilke Fleury’s litigation, business, healthcare, employment, bankruptcy, appellate, real estate, construction, and estate planning practices. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues

August 03, 2026 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction. Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

$10.5M Settlement Ends George Washington Bridge Debris Liability Fight

September 15, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A $10.5-million settlement that recently came to light has ended a six-year legal fight over whether a truck part that may have been lying on the George Washington Bridge roadway for more than 10 minutes was there long enough for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to have found and removed it before it caused a catastrophic accident. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

August 16, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense. But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence. Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight

October 06, 2026 — Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter & Jillian Marullo - 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 EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs. This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, 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 Read the full story...

Michael C. Zisa and Phillip Boldt Co-Author D.C. Chapter of “50-State Guide to Electronic Execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity”

October 06, 2026 — Michael C. Zisa & Phillip Boldt - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Michael C. Zisa, Co-Managing Partner of P&A’s Washington, D.C. office, Chair of the Surety and Construction Related Insurance Defense practice, and Co-Chair of the Crisis Management team, and Phillip Boldt, an Associate in P&A’s Washington, D.C. office, have co-authored the District of Columbia chapter of the American Bar Association (ABA) Fidelity and Surety Law Committee and The Surety & Fidelity Association of America’s (SFAA), “50-State Guide to Electronic Execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

'Drywall Isn't Light': Peter Lupo on Safety Management at Standard Drywall

May 26, 2026 — Elaine Silver - Engineering News-Record
Peter Lupo has been safety director since 2019 at San Diego-based Standard Drywall Inc., a major wall and ceiling contractor. He draws on over two decades of safety experience across a wide range of commercial construction work, having previously served as safety director for general contractor T.B. Penick & Sons. He has also previously operated Peter Lupo Consulting, where he reviewed legal cases and provided expert testimony, and blogged on safety for ENR.com. Lupo recently spoke to ENR Correspondent Elaine Silver about the weight of drywall, heat hazard control, bilingual crews and how he supports safety creativity and learning on the Standard Drywall staff. The conversation has been edited. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers

June 02, 2026 — Ryan J. Regula - Snell & Wilmer
Developers and practitioners evaluating data center projects in Arizona face a regulatory environment shifting on three fronts simultaneously. Federal executive orders are opening new land, streamlining permitting, and channeling financial incentives toward qualifying projects — but they are not preempting the state and local rules that most directly affect project economics. A carve-out in the December 2025 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework Executive Order preserves Arizona’s authority over data center infrastructure, meaning the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) rate-classification docket, municipal zoning restrictions, water-use ordinances, and pending grid cost-allocation legislation remain the binding constraints on project feasibility. Understanding where federal tailwinds end and state and local headwinds begin is essential for any developer sizing risk or selecting sites in the state. The Federal Landscape: An Interlocking Framework of Executive Orders Five interlocking executive orders are accelerating data center development nationally, but none overrides Arizona’s authority over siting energy, or infrastructure. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Regula, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Regula may be contacted at rregula@swlaw.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES