Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

July 20, 2026 — Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
I. Course of Construction Exclusions Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy. General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

High-Rise Design and Construction: Then, Now, and Next

March 16, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The Empire State Building was built in 14 months. Since 2010, the average completion time for a 200-meter-plus building has increased from 4.3 to 5.8 years. Buildings have become more complex, and there's more regulation than in the 1930s. Still, there are ways to make high-rise construction more efficient. An Unlikely Benchmark From 1930 When construction began on the Empire State Building on March 17, 1930, the world was in the midst of the Great Depression. That turned out to be an advantage. Contractors Starrett Brothers & Eken had access to a vast, motivated workforce, peaking at 3,439 workers on a single day in August 1930. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

2026 Construction Outlook: Dampening Outlook With Some Potential Bright Spots

February 17, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
According to Dodge Construction Network’s Outlook 2026 Ebook, “the construction industry came roaring into 2025” – with large government investments through the Infrastructure Bill and the CHIPS Act (promoting investment in the domestic semiconductor industry), as well as outsized spending on data centers to support cloud and AI technology – but “throttled back significantly” due to “rapid changes to economic and fiscal policies.” These changes include short-term cost impacts due to tariffs and labor impacts due to the federal government’s immigration crackdown and long-term concerns following enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) which is anticipated to add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over ten years. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation

July 27, 2026 — Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and Williams
White and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia. To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams, Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams, Zachary Roth, White and Williams and William Taylor, White and Williams Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

Turning Expert Services into Products

July 20, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
A Finnish engineering, architecture, and project consulting company, AINS Group, recently opened an online store to purchase fixed-price services. The store presents specialist work in a product-like format, with fixed service names, defined scopes, and visible prices, such as a building history report, a zoning plan cost analysis, and a technical preliminary survey for a property transaction. Is this productization a smart move or a sign that expert services are being commoditized? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

June 29, 2026 — Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & Wilmer
A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) OVERVIEW The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law). KEY HOLDINGS 1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session. Reprinted courtesy of Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Georgia HB 676: A Bill Property Owners and Contractors Should Watch

March 24, 2026 — Robert Lafayette - The Construction Seyt
Property owners, contractors, and others dealing with mechanics and materialmen’s liens in Georgia should keep an eye on HB 676, which is currently making its way through the Georgia General Assembly. The bill aims to curb misuse of the lien process and provide additional remedies to those challenging a frivolous lien filing. What HB 676 Would Do HB 676 would add a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 44-14-366.6) to the mechanics and materialmen’s lien statutes. If a lien is filed “without substantial justification or that is not made in good faith or that is made with malice or a wrongful purpose,” this new Code section would impose a fine of $1,500 per lien on the lien claimant, in addition to any attorney’s fees or court costs incurred by the party challenging the lien. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Lafayette, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Lafayette may be contacted at rlafayette@seyfarth.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES