ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Amended Again?! Critical Changes to RPAPL § 881: What New York Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know

March 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder & David Polazzi - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Recent amendments to New York’s RPAPL § 881 will significantly change how project teams obtain and maintain access to adjoining properties for construction-related work. The 2025 amendment signed into law by Governor Hochul, and the newly enacted 2026 revisions, will directly impact general contractors (GCs) and construction managers (CMs), as well as their trade contractors who regularly confront neighbor‑access, support‑of‑excavation, and protection‑of‑adjoining‑property challenges. Although we do not advise that GCs and CMs get involved in the “weeds” of license agreements or the prosecution of an action to obtain access pursuant to an RPAPL § 881 action, which are typically owner responsibilities, GCs and CMs should understand the change in law, as there may be circumstances where they are responsible for securing access. This alert outlines the key statutory changes and explains the operational, scheduling, insurance, and risk‑management implications for the New York construction industry. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and David Polazzi, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Polazzi may be contacted at dpolazzi@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Oracle's $16B Michigan Data Center Secures Financing as Power Contracts Face Appeals

June 08, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A $16 billion hyperscale data center under construction outside Ann Arbor, Mich., has secured financing backed by Blackstone and other institutional investors, even as the project's power supply agreements now face a legal challenge before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Florida’s Proposed HB 255: A Quiet Shift That Could Reshape Condo Defect Liability

January 21, 2026 — Matt Maranges - ConsensusDocs
In Florida, developers and contractors work under strict clocks. Section 95.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, sets two firm deadlines for construction claims: a four-year statute of limitations and a seven-year statute of repose. Those timelines govern when an owner or condominium association may pursue claims for alleged defects. Once the repose period ends, the claim is barred regardless of when the problem surfaced. Condominium law complicates that scheme. Section 718.124 delays the start of the limitation and repose periods on association claims until control of the board shifts from the developer to the unit owners. The logic is simple: a developer-controlled board cannot be expected to sue the developer. The practical effect is more sweeping. If turnover occurs late in the life of a project, the repose period may remain tolled for years, extending exposure far beyond the seven years that apply everywhere else. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Maranges, Jones Walker
Mr. Maranges may be contacted at mmaranges@joneswalker.com

---

Time to Negotiate Limitation on Remedies and Damages Is on the Front End

February 10, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember, when it comes to contracts, the time to negotiate and enter into mutually agreed upon bargains is on the front end. And, if the contract is not negotiable, at least you know that and can make the business decision whether you want to accept the bargains and risks. If you don’t, well, you can walk away. Move onto another deal. If you do, then you make the business decision as to the bargains or risk transfers and accept them moving forward. One of those bargains and risks deals with a limitation on damages and remedies. In a recent dispute dealing with the sale of an aircraft, there was a provision dealing with the buyer and seller’s remedies in the event of a breach. (Similar to a real estate transaction or other buyer-seller scenario.) “Contract section 10.4(a) stated that if the buyer defaulted, the seller’s “exclusive remedies” were to keep the aircraft and the buyer’s deposit. Section 10.4(b) stated that if the seller defaulted by “fail[ing] to deliver the [aircraft] in accordance with the terms of [the contract],” the buyer’s “sole remedies” were the seller’s reimbursement of the buyer’s inspection costs.” Sky Aviation Holdings, LLC v. Aviation Unlimited, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2658c (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). As you can see, there was a limitation on the seller’s damages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Two Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Selected as 2026 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars

May 14, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
SAN DIEGO – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that two attorneys in the San Diego office have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars publication. Rising Stars is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. To be eligible for inclusion, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research and peer nominations, with no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state named to the Rising Stars list. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Insurer’s Late Notice Argument Fails Due to Lack of Prejudice

December 30, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court refused to dismiss the insured’s claim for hail damage based on late notice because the insurer failed to demonstrate it had suffered prejudice. Borene UMC v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210767 (W.D. Texas Oct. 27, 2025). Boerne UMC owned multiple buildings that were allegedly damaged during a hailstorm that occurred in May 2021. In August 2022, Boerne hired a contractor to inspect the roofs. The contractor found damage to several roofs and HVAC units and prepared an estimate for repair of over $700,000. Boerne submitted a claim to its insurer, Church Mutual on November 17, 2022. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

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...

---