ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Four Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers List

March 03, 2026 — Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – Feb. 20, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that partners Jason Feld, Amir Kahana, Sharon Oh-Kubisch, and Manuel Ugarte were selected to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers® list. Jason Feld is a founding partner of Kahana Feld. He focuses his practice on the defense of homebuilders, contractors, developers, and real estate professionals primarily in construction defect, general liability, insurance defense, construction accident, and real estate matters. He also represents government entities handling construction, premises liability, general liability, and environmental claims. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, as well as personal counsel to several national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

---

EPA Steps Back, Arizona Moves Forward

May 12, 2026 — Patrick J. Paul, John Habib & Sukhmani K. Singh - Snell & Wilmer
In a significant development for Arizona’s business community and environmental policymakers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has paused its planned reclassification of Maricopa County from “Moderate” to “Serious” ozone nonattainment status pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This decision marks a shift in federal air policy — one that recognizes the unique challenges faced by regions like metro Phoenix, where environmental conditions beyond local control are often key contributors to air quality readings. The EPA’s move follows a series of meetings between EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Arizona elected officials, and business and civic leaders, including a recent roundtable in Phoenix convened by U.S. Senator Mark Kelly. In announcing the pause, Zeldin acknowledged the need for flexibility and fairness in the application of Clean Air Act standards, especially when emissions from other states, nations, and natural events significantly influence local air quality. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer, John Habib, Snell & Wilmer and Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com Mr. Habib may be contacted at jhabib@swlaw.com Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

GRSM Secures Complete Judgment for Defense in Years-Long Dispute Spanning Multiple Venues

June 22, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Hartford, Connecticut, and Dallas offices recently secured a complete defense judgment and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an arbitration on behalf of a longtime client, concluding a dispute that lasted several years and traversed multiple jurisdictions. The dispute initially arose in Texas state court, and almost immediately, the claimant began pursuing the matter aggressively, a pattern that continued until the day judgment was entered in GRSM’s client’s favor. GRSM’s team mounted a strong defense, achieving an early success in compelling mandatory arbitration. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

We Won’t Permit That Excuse!

June 23, 2026 — Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocs
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit? But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation. The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

How Engineers Will Determine Why NYC's Pfizer HQ Conversion Buckled

July 13, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
Construction crews have stabilized the former Pfizer headquarters redevelopment in Midtown Manhattan after two load-bearing structural columns buckled on the 21st floor July 7. The focus has now shifted from emergency response to determining what caused the office-to-residential conversion to suffer a major structural failure. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Claim for Roof Damage Caused by Windstorm

May 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, eliminating the insured’s claim for roof damage due to windstorm. Mulas v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537 (Jan. 30, 2026). The insureds’ commercial property sustained windstorm damage during Hurricane Ian. Westchester denied the claim. The insureds believed Westchester wrongfully denied coverage for roof damage and various interior damage to property. The insureds also argued that Westchester’s actual cash value (ACV) payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. The insureds sued and Westchester moved for summary judgment. Westchester argued the roof damage was not covered because Hurricane Ian did not cause the damage. Westchester hired an engineer who determined the roof damage was not caused by wind from Hurricane Ian. Westchester pointed out that the insureds’ expert also found no wind damage on the roof. The insureds offered no other evidence suggesting the hurricane caused roof damage. Therefore, the insureds could not show that Westchester breached the policy by denying coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---