ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes 14 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

March 03, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that 14 attorneys in its Los Angeles and Orange County offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers publication. Of those 15, six were recognized as Rising Stars. Super Lawyers is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. The final published list represents no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

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

---

No Bad Faith Despite Insurer’s Appraisal Award Exceeding Initial Payment

August 03, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding no bad faith despite the appraisal award exceeding the amount the insurer initially paid. Jazi Kat 4659 Rockridge LLC, et al. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., et al., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105634 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2026). Plaintiffs sued Travelers for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that Travelers failed to pay money plaintiffs were owed under the policy. Plaintiffs held a commercial property policy for two properties. A fire destroyed one of the properties. Travelers adjusted the claim and issued two payments. Plaintiffs disagreed with the amount of the payments and demanded an appraisal. Travelers agreed to the appraisal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Balancing the Right to Repair With Evidence Preservation in Construction Defect Litigation

April 20, 2026 — Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer - Construction Executive
Every major construction project comes with risk, whether it’s a warehouse build, a multifamily development or a major renovation. Parties tend to be aligned when things are proceeding as planned. But when something goes wrong—cracked concrete, water intrusion, systems that don’t perform as expected—those interests can quickly diverge. Property owners are often caught in the middle when construction defects surface. They’re expected to act quickly to limit damage and costs. But they also have legal obligations to preserve evidence and allow potentially responsible parties, such as contractors or designers, to observe testing, demolition and repairs. Additionally, owners often have duties to lenders and investors to fix problems promptly and pursue claims against those responsible. Meanwhile, contractors and other parties have obligations of their own—not to interfere with repairs and not to delay mitigation efforts while investigations are underway. What follows will examine how those competing responsibilities play out in construction defect disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

July 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:

Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”

Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).

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

---

Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move

April 27, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers. FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---