ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage

April 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025). The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy

March 10, 2026 — Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, T. Troy Galan & Thomas Williams - Snell & Wilmer
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA. For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com> Read the full story...

---

FTC Issues Warning Letters to Property Management Software Providers on Price Transparency

January 26, 2026 — Christine Tenley, Patrick A. Garcia & Michael Hettig - Lewis Brisbois
Atlanta, Ga. (December 23, 2025) - On December 8, 2025 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent what it is describing as a “Warning Letter” to companies that provide property management software to landlords (“Software Providers”). While the letter does not speak specifically to landlords, landlords can still use the information contained in the letter to adopt best practices to avoid potential enforcement action. The Warning Letter references two high profile civil enforcement actions the FTC has undertaken in the last two years: FTC v. Invitation Homes, and FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al., two cases in which the FTC targeted landlords for what it deemed unfair or deceptive advertising practices. Citing those cases, the FTC warns software providers that they must provide platforms on which landlords can accurately advertise the total monthly cost of a rental property rather than simply advertising the monthly rental payment. The FTC then warns that failure to create platforms that share the total monthly payments may result in enforcement action. Reprinted courtesy of Christine Tenley, Lewis Brisbois, Patrick A. Garcia, Lewis Brisbois and Michael Hettig, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Tenley may be contacted at Christine.Tenley@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Garcia may be contacted at Patrick.Garcia@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hettig may be contacted at Michael.Hettig@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

---

Louisiana Enacts Important Tort Reform Legislation

May 12, 2026 — Lee M. Peacocke & Benjamin Perkins - Lewis Brisbois
The Louisiana legislature enacted tort reform legislation in 2025 to address the increasing cost of insurance in Louisiana and to provide some predictability to the Louisiana legal system. While our colleagues, Jenny Michel and Jennifer Kretschmann, have provided an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the legislation in their article entitled “Louisiana State Legislature 2025 Regular Session: Tort Reform - Acts & Vetoed Insurance Bill,” which can be found here, this article examines the anticipated impact of the tort reform legislation on personal injury trials in federal and state courts in Louisiana. The most significant reform involves the institution of a modified defense of contributory negligence, which went into effect on January 1, 2026. Since 1996, Louisiana had operated as a pure comparative fault state; the liability of each party whose fault caused damages was to be allocated among the respective parties based upon their appropriate percentage of fault, regardless of the legal theory of liability asserted against each party. Thus, a plaintiff 55 percent at fault could recover 45 percent of their damages from the liable defendants. The 2025 Tort Reform Amendments now prohibit a plaintiff in a personal injury action from recovering any damages if they are found to be 51 percent or more at fault for their damages. The 55 percent at-fault party in the example above is now prohibited from recovering any damages from any party. Importantly, this new legislation now requires the trial court to instruct the jury that if they find a plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault, then the plaintiff will not recover any damages. Reprinted courtesy of Lee M. Peacocke, Lewis Brisbois and Benjamin Perkins, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Peacocke may be contacted at Lee.Peacocke@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Perkins may be contacted at Benjamin.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

---

Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!

April 14, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide

May 26, 2026 — Newmeyer Dillion
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County. Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial. Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Newmeyer Dillion

---

Alert: Fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment Defense Applies to Payment Bond Claims

April 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under Florida’s Lien Law, there’s an affirmative defense or affirmative claim known as a “fraudulent lien.” The fraudulent lien defense or claim is set out in Florida Statute s. 713.31. This defense also extends to payment bond claims, whether under a private statutory payment bond (Florida Statute s. 713.23) or a public payment bond (Florida Statute s. 255.05), as it pertains to the notice of nonpayment. A notice of nonpayment needs to be served within 90 days from final furnishing to preserve a claimant’s rights against the bond. However, there really has not been a case, until now, that discusses a “fraudulent notice of nonpayment.” In K&M Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brown Electrical Solutions, LLC, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D672a (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), a prime contractor and surety prevailed at the trial level on their fraudulent notice of nonpayment defense based on a supplier’s notice of nonpayment and action against a public payment bond (under Florida Statute s. 255.05). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---