ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

May 12, 2026 — Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Second Circuit Revives Policyholder’s Negligence Claim Against Agent

December 08, 2025 — Latosha M. Ellis, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
From insurance agents and wholesalers to risk consultants and policyholders, there are many parties involved in commercial insurance transactions. While each has an important part to play, the policyholder-agent relationship is particularly important to ensure both sides understand their respective roles and obligations when an agent assists in obtaining coverage. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided important guidance under New York law about the scope of an insurance agent’s responsibilities, particularly when an agent, at a policyholder’s request, expressly takes on tasks beyond simply procuring coverage. The decision underscores that an agent’s obligations can extend beyond standard procurement duties by express agreement, though the outcome could differ under the law of another jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@hunton.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Ninth Circuit Issues Injunction Halting SB 261 Climate Disclosure Laws

December 22, 2025 — Michael S. McDonough & Karen Eskander - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction temporarily halting the implementation of California’s SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, just weeks before the law’s first mandated disclosures on January 1, 2026. The court declined to stay California’s companion climate emissions disclosure bill, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253), due to that bill’s less immediately pressing compliance deadline of August 2026. Background on California Climate Disclosure Laws As we have discussed in previous posts, California enacted two comprehensive climate disclosure laws in 2023. The Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) impose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk reporting requirements that apply to thousands of public and private companies formed under U.S. law and “doing business in California.” The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has released a preliminary list of companies it believes may be subject to the state’s new climate disclosure regime. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury and Karen Eskander, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Eskander may be contacted at karen.eskander@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Will the YIMBY ‘Holy Grail’ Deliver an LA Building Boom?

December 08, 2025 — Patrick Sisson - Bloomberg
When California Governor Gavin Newsom signed State Bill 79 into law on Oct. 10, supporters of the pro-housing “Yes In My Backyard” movement celebrated a legislative victory that had been called a YIMBY “holy grail.” By legalizing multistory apartments near transit stops in the state’s most urbanized counties — and crucially, in areas formerly zoned for single-family homes — SB 79 was hailed as a huge step toward closing California’s longstanding affordable housing gap. Along with recent reform of the state’s infamous project-delaying environmental review law, CEQA, SB 79 boosters like the advocacy group California YIMBY say that the legislation can unlock the promised goal of “housing abundance” when it comes into effect on July 1, 2026. Now comes the hard part — especially in places like Los Angeles. There, SB 79 faces fierce opposition from community groups who see it as a destroyer of neighborhoods, and from lawmakers like Mayor Karen Bass and a majority of the city council who believe it usurps local control. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg

---

Promptly Notifying Your Insurer of a Claim Matters

December 30, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Does promptly notifying your insurer of a claim matter? A recent case out of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals answers this question in the affirmative. MAKE SURE TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY YOUR INSURER OF A POTENTIAL CLAIM. In L. Squared Industries, Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 31 Fla.L.Weekly C529a (11th Cir. 2025), an insured owned gas stations and had a claims-made storage tank liability insurance policy. The policy provided: “You must see to it that we are notified as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event, not more than seven (7) days after the insured first became aware of, or should have become aware of a pollution condition which may result in a claim or any action or proceeding to impose an obligation on the insured for cleanup costs . . . .” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

GRSM Attorneys Selected to 2025 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

January 06, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Super Lawyers® has released its 2025 attorney lists across various regions of the United States. This year, 189 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been selected, with 60 named to Super Lawyers and 129 named to Rising Stars. *For attorneys licensed to practice in New Jersey: No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Please visit the Super Lawyers Selection Process for a detailed description of the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars selection methodology. GRSM Super Lawyers 2025 Northern California Michael D. Bruno David C. Capell Lisa M. Cappelluti Dion N. Cominos Matthew S. Foy Natalie Fujikawa Marie Trimble Holvick Michael A. Laurenson Michael J. Pietrykowski Andrew I. Port Gina Stassi Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Construction Expert and Judge Living in the Same Hood Is Not Grounds For Recusal

December 08, 2025 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, Nowaczyk v. Daniels Construction (Nov. 4, 2025), a contractor tried to disqualify the trial judge because the judge happened to live in the same neighborhood as a potential expert witness for the homeowners. The court’s response? Proximity isn’t prejudice. The dispute started when homeowners sued Daniels Construction for allegedly botched remodeling work. When the judge disclosed during a hearing that he lived near the plaintiffs’ proposed expert, the defense moved to have him recused from the case. They argued that prior cases involving the same expert had led to recusals. The trial judge, however, made clear there was no personal or professional relationship with the expert and denied the motion. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew J. DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

---

Contracting Chaos? How Mid-America v. US Department of Transportation is Upending DBE Certifications

December 02, 2025 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
Since the early 1980s, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs including the one implemented by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) have been in effect. The DBE program began under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and has been reauthorized by Congress in various bills over the years. Generally, these DBE programs have required that ten percent of federal highway construction funds be paid to small businesses controlled and owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” Certain minority and women owned businesses have been given a presumption of disadvantage to facilitate their participation in federally‑assisted DOT contracting. While any person may qualify as socially and economically disadvantaged regardless of their race or gender, certain racial groups and women are rebuttably presumed to be disadvantaged. All other applicants seeking DBE status who are not presumed disadvantaged on the basis of their racial or female status must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are socially and economically disadvantaged. Many states have enacted similar requirements governing state and local projects. Recently, the presumption of disadvantaged status has come under attack in Mid‑America Milling Company v. U.S. Department of Transportation[i] pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The results of Mid-America represents a drastic change to the DOT’s DBE program for federal DOT contracting. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---