ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Snell & Wilmer Phoenix Partner Jody Pokorski Named Winner of Connect CRE’s 2025 Lawyers in Real Estate Awards

January 21, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
Phoenix – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Phoenix Partner Jody K. Pokorski has been named a winner of Connect CRE’s Lawyers in Real Estate Awards for the Phoenix and Southwest region. This recognition highlights commercial real estate lawyers throughout various regions of the U.S., who have significantly impacted commercial real estate through their contributions to the industry and community. Pokorski’s practice is concentrated in real estate transactions, finance and regulatory matters, including work relating to commercial purchase and sale transactions, real estate financing, master planned communities, subdivision matters, and leasing. She advises large and small corporate clients in real estate matters throughout the United States. Pokorski represents developers, owners, lenders, and contractors and has significant experience handling real estate matters for institutes of higher learning and other educational entities. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Subcontrator’s Insurer Must Reimburse for Defense of Contractor

January 21, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the subcontractor’s insurer owed a defense to the additional insured general contractor in a bodily injury suit. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227712 (S.D. W. V. Nov. 19, 2025). A.L.L. Construction, Inc. was the general contractor for a construction project. West Virginia Paving, Inc. was the subcontractor for paving work. After construction began, Charlottee Smith allegedly fell and was injured due to A.L.L. and West Virginia Paving’s negligent work. She sued both A.L.L. and West Virgina Paving. Smith and West Virginia Paving settled. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

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

---

50 State Matrices | 2026 Edition

March 03, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
GRSM’s 50 State Legal Matrices provide a comprehensive, state-by-state snapshot of statutory law across all 50 U.S. states. Spanning critical areas such as indemnification, contractor licensing, labor standards, statute of limitations, and more, this resource enables businesses and counsel to quickly identify key legal requirements and variations across jurisdictions. Designed as a practical starting point rather than definitive legal advice, the Matrices help multi-state operators and attorneys navigate the complex patchwork of laws that can vary dramatically from one state to another. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Exclusion Bars Coverage For Cosmetic Hail Damage to Roof

January 13, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding there was no coverage for hail damage due to an exclusion for cosmetic hail damage. Cannon Falls Area Schools v Hanover Am. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206792 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025). On April 22, 2022, a hailstorm and high winds damaged the insured School’s buildings. The School’s buildings had metal roofs. The parties agreed that the hailstorm caused indentations to the roofs, but did not puncture the metal on the roofs. Since the storm, the roofs had not leaked. The School submitted a claim for property damage to its insurer, Hanover. A portion of the claim for damage to the HVAC equipment was paid. The remainder of the claim was denied based on the policy’s Cosmetic Damage Exclusion which excluded coverage for cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind or hail. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Subrogation Insight: Expert Testimony Admissible Despite Post-Loss Repairs

December 30, 2025 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ghaznavi v. Arby Constr., Inc., No. 14-24-00213-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 839, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly excluded the plaintiffs’, Kambiz Moavenzadeh Ghaznavi and Anahita Nokkonejad (collectively, the Ghaznavis), liability expert. The case arose from a fire at the Ghaznavis’ residence. The trial court held that because the Ghaznavis’ expert did not physically inspect certain fire damaged areas before they were repaired, the expert’s testimony was unreliable and thus inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the expert’s review of photographs of the repaired areas and his testimony explaining his opinions were sufficient to survive summary judgment. In this case, the Ghaznavis’ hired the defendant, Arby Construction Inc. d/b/a National Residential Services (Arby Constr.), to install new tiling in a corridor inside their home. The corridor was adjacent to the garage. While Arby Constr. was performing the work, the Ghaznavis asked the defendant to fix an outlet inside the garage that was not working. Arby Constr. installed a new wire that connected the outlet to the garage door opener at the ceiling of the garage. Less than 2 months later, a fire occurred in the garage area. The fire marshal placed the origin of the fire in the ceiling of the corridor adjacent to the garage. The fire marshal’s report stated that “faulty wiring in the corridor behind the garage” caused the fire. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Soot Constitutes Property Damage

March 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. 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 Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet

March 31, 2026 — Christopher Barnett - Construction Executive
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump did what many expected: It held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. What few anticipated was the speed of what followed: Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposed a 10% global surcharge effective February 24, and signaled forthcoming Section 301 investigations against most major trading partners. For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Barnett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---