Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Pulling the Plug, Preserving the Product: Protecting Rights to a Modular Subcontractor’s Work Post-Termination

June 08, 2026 — Paul Williamson - ConsensusDocs
Volumetric Modular Construction (VMC) is a building method where a structure is divided into large components or modules, fabricated in an offsite factory and then transported to a construction site for assembly.[1] Proponents of VMC hail it as a cost-efficient alternative to traditional building methods that leads to more consistent quality and shorter construction duration.[2] Due to a growing labor shortage, high demand for compressed project schedules, and stagnant construction productivity rates, the construction industry is embracing VMC.[3] A recent report on the market size of prefabricated construction estimates that from 2026 to 2031, VMC will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.16% and become a 413.11-billion-dollar industry.[4] As VMC becomes more prevalent, owners, general contractors, and subcontractors must consider how to effectively contract for modular construction. One important consideration, which this article focuses on, is navigating termination of a modular subcontractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Williamson, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Williamson may be contacted at pwilliamson@pecklaw.com

HDR Agreed to $12M Settlement With Miami Bridge Design-Build Team

May 12, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
HDR last year agreed to pay $12 million to the design-build construction contractor Archer Western-de Moya Group to settle its claims that the engineer had incompletely designed and under-designed Miami's new Signature Bridge when the joint venture committed to a fixed price prior to construction in 2018. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Tony Sonnett Secures Highly Favorable Verdict for Client in Admitted Liability Case in Which Plaintiff Sought $34.5M

September 29, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Los Angeles Partner Tony Sonnett recently obtained a highly favorable verdict for his property owner client in an admitted liability case in which the plaintiff had asked for $34.5 million, with a jury awarding just $75,000. The plaintiff, who was a tenant at one of the client’s rental properties, was injured in October 2020 as he was attempting to close the heavy metal blinds that were affixed to the 12-foot floor-to-ceiling windows of the property. The blinds and their heavy metal covering detached from the wall and fell on the plaintiff’s head, causing him to suffer a scalp laceration that required stitches. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Suit Limitation Provision Eliminates Wind Loss Claim

July 27, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted after the insured failed to file suit against the insurer within the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision. Interstate Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98108 (S.D. N. Y. May 4, 2026). On or before June 27, 2023, a wind, hail and rainstorm damaged Interstate’s property in Oklahoma. Interstate filed a claim under its policy with Mt. Hawley. The policy provided that New York law applied and contained a two- year suit limitation provision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.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...

Leading Boutiques Combine to Form SDV Fenchurch, A Global Law Firm for Insurance Policyholders

September 15, 2026 — SDV Fenchurch
TRUMBULL, Conn., and LONDON, Sept. 1, 2026 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. (SDV), Fenchurch Law, Wesolowski Abogados, and CLIR & Fenchurch and their partner members in Asia, Europe and North America combined today to launch SDV Fenchurch, a global law firm built exclusively to represent policyholders and the brokers who advise them. Structured as a Swiss verein, SDV Fenchurch unites dedicated insurance-recovery practices across eight jurisdictions in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, and Singapore. With over 90 lawyers devoted to insurance coverage matters, the firm is among the largest policyholder-side practices in the world and, by number of jurisdictions with full-time policyholder counsel capabilities, the most geographically extensive. The founders are brought together by a single shared mission: to act solely for policyholders, never the insurers, in insurance disputes. This is in stark contrast to most international firms with insurance practices, which mostly represent insurers only. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of SDV Fenchurch

HHMR and Every One of its Partners Recognized by Legal 500 in Denver Elite – Real Estate

April 20, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is pleased to announce its recognition as a Tier 1 firm in the Denver Elite rankings for Real Estate, a category that includes construction law and construction litigation, by The Legal 500. In addition, each of the firm’s partners has been individually recognized in the same rankings. The firm’s individual recognitions include:

David M. McLain — Tier 1
Ricky L. Nolen, Jr. — Tier 2
Lisa Bondy Dunn — Tier 3

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES