ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

August 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com

---

What Prevents Innovation in Construction from Taking Off

September 15, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In construction, we have the knowledge, technology, and innovative people to radically improve our performance, yet we’re still stuck in old ways. Why is that? I attended an annual gathering for real estate and construction professionals at Rakennustieto Oy, Finland’s leading building information provider. The day before, a half-day seminar was held at the same venue. During both events, we discussed the need for change in the construction sector. Everyone agreed that we need to radically improve how we produce and share information. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business

---

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

---

Conditional Payment Bond Consideration-Make Sure There Is Pay-If-Paid Provision

June 29, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If a general contractor is going to have a conditional payment bond, it needs to ensure it subcontracts contain pay-if-paid or pay-when-paid provisions. This conditional payment language in subcontracts is the general contractor’s defense that it doesn’t have to pay a subcontractor UNTIL owner has paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. The general contractor (and the surety) can look at the conditional payment bond with the s. 713.245 legend stamped on its face designating the conditional nature of the bond, and assume the conditional structure is locked in against the bond: no payment from the owner, no obligation to the subcontractors under the bond. But what happens when the subcontracts contain no express conditional payment language despite having a valid conditional payment bond? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Engineering Seals Versus Contracts ‘Under Seal’ (Two Very Different Things)

May 05, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently, I was asked by a reader to explain the difference between a document that is ‘sealed’ by an engineer (or architect) and one that is signed ‘under seal’. This question prompted this post, as others may also be wondering about the distinction. [Hi Ed! Thanks for your question] Professionals have ‘seals’ that show that they are registered (Engineers) or licensed (Architects). As most of you likely know, your professional seal is something that is hard won and which is used when—and only when—your plans were made by you or someone under your direct supervisory control. Your signature represents that you were in responsible control over the documents, and that they have met the required professional standard of care. (21 NC Admin Code 2-0206 (a)(11)). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Five Partners 'Lawyers of the Year'

September 08, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Best Lawyers has selected 207 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 45 offices for its 33rd edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized five Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: Akron Partner John R. Conley (Product Liability Litigation - Defendants); Akron Managing Partner David Kern (Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law; Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law; Tax Law; Trusts and Estates); Weirton Managing Partner Michelle L. Gorman (Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants); Portland Partner Megan Cook (Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants); and San Diego Partner Craig T. Mann (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can also see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Not All Warranty E-Mails Are Notices of Claim

October 20, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
There is a frustrating tendency in some Colorado construction defect litigation to treat virtually any written complaint about construction work as a statutory notice of claim under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). An e-mail complaining about cracked concrete. A request for warranty service. A message asking a builder to come inspect a leaking window. Years later, when the homeowner faces a statute-of-limitations defense, these routine communications are suddenly characterized as statutory notices of claim, with the convenient consequence that an otherwise untimely lawsuit becomes timely. Enough is enough. A warranty complaint is not a statutory notice of claim simply because a homeowner complains about construction. Courts and arbitrators should stop treating the two as interchangeable. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
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...

---