Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Insured Does Not Prevail on Summary Judgment Motion Invoking Ensuing Loss Provision

May 05, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of fact regarding implication of the policy’s ensuing loss provision. Stella Prop. Dev.. & Event Productions, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15854 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026). Stella owned a cultural center that was insured under a commercial property all-risk policy issued by Auto-Owners. A windstorm with gusts of 65 miles per hour struck the Center causing damage. The Center’s inspector found extensive wind damage on nearly all facets of the roof. Further, the inspector found the existing organic shingles were in “very poor condition” and were “defective, discontinued, and no longer available.” The estimated cost of repairs to the roof was $108,010.52. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

May 26, 2026 — Gray Development Group
PHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction. The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale. The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market. According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona. Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing. ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997. About Gray Development Group Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.

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

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

Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires

March 24, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined. In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Pay-If-Paid: What You Need to Know Before Signing on the Dotted Line

August 03, 2026 — Christian Fernandez & Matthew Racioppo - Snell & Wilmer
Buried deep in the fine print of a subcontract, a pay-if-paid clause may be looming. If you are a subcontractor or supplier, misreading these clauses can put your cash flow at risk. If you are an owner or general contractor, drafting them incorrectly can leave you with obligations you never intended — or unenforceable protections you were counting on. It is more important than ever to understand when pay-if-paid clauses hold up and when they do not, as well as recent litigation and drafting trends. Whether you are negotiating a new agreement, reviewing your standard form contracts, or staring down a payment dispute, understanding how Arizona law treats pay-if-paid clauses is essential. In this article, we break down key considerations, walk through the legal standards Arizona courts apply, and offer practical tips to consider to help you protect your payment rights on the next project. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer and Matthew Racioppo, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com Mr. Racioppo may be contacted at mracioppo@swlaw.com Read the full story...

4th Department Narrowly Interprets Professional Services

August 11, 2026 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Cty. of Erie v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 NY Slip Op 04092 (App. Div. 4th Dept.), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that a general liability carrier for a construction manager owed additional insured coverage to the County of Erie, notwithstanding an exclusion in the construction manager’s policy for injuries arising out of professional services. The underlying case involved injuries sustained when the underlying plaintiff fell off of her bicycle at a park owned by the County when she transitioned from the pavement edge to grass. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES