Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

July 13, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized as a 2026 Northern California Super Lawyer honoree in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the thirteenth consecutive year he has been recognized by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers, an annual listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and personal achievement, is limited to no more than five percent (5%) of lawyers in a state who are selected through a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluation and peer reviews by practice area. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes 14 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

March 03, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that 14 attorneys in its Los Angeles and Orange County offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers publication. Of those 15, six were recognized as Rising Stars. Super Lawyers is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. The final published list represents no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Senior Associate Shanna Carter on Winning Another Motion for Summary Judgment!

March 17, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Jeffrey Saab and Senior Associate Shanna Carter’s client owned a condo, which he rented out. The tenant allegedly assaulted Plaintiff across the street from the condo, resulting in personal injury, including nerve damage. Shanna did the research and writing, and Jeff argued the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ruled, in pertinent part, that the subject assault off property was not foreseeable, resulting in a complete dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

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

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...

Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

May 05, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured. The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured: This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Kahana Feld Announces Key Partner Additions Coast to Coast

June 22, 2026 — Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – June 10, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce Yvette Davis, Evan Kalooky, Beth Obra-White, Sean Paden, Michael Parme, Jeffrey Schmid, and Julieanne Yanez have joined the firm as partners. Four of these partners are joining the San Diego office, which further strengthens the firm’s General Liability and Construction Litigation practices and enhances Kahana Feld’s ability to serve clients across a broad range of complex matters in the region. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES