Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site

March 03, 2026 — Jason Loring - ConsensusDocs
Artificial intelligence has moved from the conference room to the construction site. Contractors are using AI-powered tools to predict schedule delays, monitor safety through drone footage, optimize equipment maintenance and flag potential hazards in real time. These tools deliver genuine efficiency gains, but they also introduce risks that most construction contracts do not anticipate and many project teams aren’t yet equipped to manage. The problem is that AI tools are probabilistic and not determinative, meaning that they can “hallucinate”: generating confident, but completely wrong, information. Your AI scheduling software might therefore predict a delay that never materializes, causing unnecessary resource mobilization. Your drone monitoring might flag a nonexistent safety hazard, stopping work and costing productivity. Or worse, it might miss a real hazard entirely. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Loring, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Loring may be contacted at jloring@joneswalker.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Orange County Team for Securing a Strong MSJ Result in a Residential Gas Explosion Matter!

May 14, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Huge Congratulations to Partner Kevin Wheeler and Associate Lindsey Wells for securing a strong result on a Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of their client, the City of Murrieta. This was a complex, multi-party matter arising from a residential gas leak and explosion, where Plaintiffs alleged the City and MFPD failed to properly respond to the incident. After multiple complaints were consolidated and extensive defense work narrowed the case, eighteen plaintiffs remained asserting five causes of action against the City, prompting a comprehensive MSJ/MSA targeting liability, causation, and damages. The Court’s ruling reflects a significant win, particularly on the immunity framework. The Court eliminated the core negligence and assumed-duty claims arising from fire protection and emergency response activities. It further disposed of the misrepresentation and public nuisance claims. At the end of the day, three plaintiffs were dismissed entirely for failure to comply with Government Claims Act requirements, further reducing the scope of the case. While the dangerous condition claim remains, it does so in a very limited posture. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test

March 31, 2026 — Catherine Maronski - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards. The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Maronski, Robinson Cole
Ms. Maronski may be contacted at cmaronski@rc.com

Navigating Wind and Solar Development Opportunities on State and Private Lands During Uncertain Times for Renewable Energy

February 02, 2026 — Cara M. MacDonald, Robert G. Howard & Andrew Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Recent executive actions and federal guidance have targeted wind and solar development, creating substantial uncertainty for the U.S. offshore wind industry and also reshaping the regulatory landscape governing onshore wind and solar development. Wind and solar projects on federal lands are now subject to heightened review processes and enhanced regulatory scrutiny. As a result, many developers are considering opportunities on state-owned and privately held lands rather than federal lands. 2025 Federal Executive Actions Impacting Wind and Solar At the federal level, renewable energy development on public lands is governed primarily by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The agency provides rights of way and leases (in designated leasing areas) for energy project development. Despite significant incentives for renewable energy development under the Biden administration, the Trump administration has deprioritized renewable energy in support of traditional energy sources like oil, gas and coal, as well as nuclear and geothermal energy. Reprinted courtesy of Cara M. MacDonald, Pillsbury, Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Andrew Jacobs, Pillsbury Ms. MacDonald may be contacted at cara.macdonald@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

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

Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Seven Practice Areas in 2026 Best Law Firms

January 06, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
November 6, 2025) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for 'Appellate Practice,' 'Commercial Litigation,' ‘Insurance Law,’ 'Litigation - Construction,' ‘Litigation - Labor and Employment,’ ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ and ‘Transportation Law,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 27 metro regions in its 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®. In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national rankings, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories: Akron

Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Tax Law
Trusts and Estates

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

May 14, 2026 — Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis Brisbois
Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void

February 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The 2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue. On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES