ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas Explosion

March 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a recent Seventh Circuit decision, Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Navigators Insurance Company, the court addressed a theme that policyholders are often confronted with by insurers[1] – insurers disputing additional insured coverage where the named insured is not named in the underlying action. The court aptly rejected this position since it was undisputed that the bodily injuries alleged in the underlying lawsuits were due to a gas explosion that was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the named insured’s acts or omissions. I. Background The additional insureds, Atlanta Gas Light Company and Southern Company Gas (collectively, “AGL”), retained the named insured, United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”), to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned in Georgia. USIC failed to mark a certain gas line, which was later struck by a boring company, leading to an explosion that injured three people. Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Celebrating BWB&O’s 2026 Super Lawyers Rising Stars in San Diego!

March 31, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners Jocelyn Russo, Christina Matian, and Associate Angelo Perillo have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 San Diego Rising Stars list. This recognition highlights their outstanding dedication and distinguished service in Family Law, Civil Litigation, and Personal Injury Litigation.

SUPER LAWYERS Jocelyn Russo: 2023-2026 Christina Matian: 2024-2026 Angelo Perillo: 2024-2026

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

---

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...

---

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...

---

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Claim for Roof Damage Caused by Windstorm

May 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, eliminating the insured’s claim for roof damage due to windstorm. Mulas v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537 (Jan. 30, 2026). The insureds’ commercial property sustained windstorm damage during Hurricane Ian. Westchester denied the claim. The insureds believed Westchester wrongfully denied coverage for roof damage and various interior damage to property. The insureds also argued that Westchester’s actual cash value (ACV) payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. The insureds sued and Westchester moved for summary judgment. Westchester argued the roof damage was not covered because Hurricane Ian did not cause the damage. Westchester hired an engineer who determined the roof damage was not caused by wind from Hurricane Ian. Westchester pointed out that the insureds’ expert also found no wind damage on the roof. The insureds offered no other evidence suggesting the hurricane caused roof damage. Therefore, the insureds could not show that Westchester breached the policy by denying coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Trend Continues Where Unlicensed Contractors Have No Recourse

July 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There’s been a recent trend in Florida case law that has figuratively “killed” unlicensed contractors. Here’s another one. The moral to this trend and case is simple: make sure you have the proper licenses prior to serving as a contractor under Florida law. Trying to be cute, as seemed to be the situation in this case with a creative argument, is not an argument that will carry the day and your resources will be devoted to being creative versus the ultimate merits of the dispute. In Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski, 2026 WL 1649571 (S.D.Fla. 2026) an owner of real property hired a company to design and construct a spec home on the property. The company and its owner were NOT licensed contractors. The contract stated the company was serving as a “spec developer” and referred to it as the contractor throughout the contract. Other than this, the contract was set up as a cost plus a fee. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

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

---

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment

June 15, 2026 — Jennifer Kretschmann & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis Brisbois
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities. The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

---