ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Mortgage Company Fails to Prove Loss or Entitlement to Damages, Eliminating Recovery

December 15, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action after the mortgage company failed to prove the loss or entitlement to damages was affirmed. Erie Ins. Co. v. F St. Investments, LLC, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2025). MR DLB Properties LLC was in the business of property restoration and renovation. MR DLB executed a mortgage on three properties as secuirty for payment on a note issued by mortgagee F Street. As a condition of the mortgage, MR DLB obtained commercial liability insurance coverage with Erie. The policy provided $908,100 in replacement/repair property coverage and listed F Street as first mortgagee. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.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

---

Applicability of Florida’s Building Code Is a Question of Law

November 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The application of Florida’s Building Code is a question of law for the court. It’s NOT a question for a witness to determine. In a recent personal injury dispute dealing with the tripping and falling on a public sidewalk, a key issue included the application of Florida’s Building Code on a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants where a major portion of the ruling was based on the inapplicability of Florida’s Building Code to the public sidewalk. Even though the plaintiff had an expert witness that opined that the Florida Building Code did apply, the trial court rejected this opinion in determining the Code did not apply:

Whether the Florida Building Code is applicable to this case ultimately is a question of law belonging to the court, not the witness. See Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Ag., Inc., 645 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A. Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law. It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code . . . .” (citations omitted)). As such, it was the responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the building code applies to the sidewalk in this case and whether the code provided evidence of negligence. See Martin v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., No. 6:15-cv-1364-ORL-41KRS, 2017 WL 2928154, at *4 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017) (“Accordingly, [the expert] may not testify as to the applicability or inapplicability of any provision of the Florida Building Code. This Court will determine what provisions, if any, are applicable to the facts of this case.”).

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

---

At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages

March 17, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages. The Nabors Case In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

EPA Proposes New WOTUS Definition, Narrowing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

December 30, 2025 — Patrick J. Paul, Chris P. Colyer & John Habib - Snell & Wilmer
On November 17, 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule that would significantly narrow its regulatory authority over Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Under the new proposed WOTUS rule, EPA would effectively have jurisdiction only over relatively permanent waters and a smaller subset of directly connected wetlands. The WOTUS definition outlines the geographic reach of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ and EPA’s authority under the 1972 Clean Water Act to regulate streams, wetlands, and other water bodies. As such, it has been reviewed in boardrooms, courtrooms, and government offices for over fifty years. Most recently, on May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sackett v. EPA. In Sackett, the Supreme Court determined that WOTUS are only (1) relatively permanent bodies of water, such as oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams; or (2) adjacent wetlands indistinguishable from those waters because of a continuous surface connection. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer, Chris P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and John Habib, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Mr. Habib may be contacted at jhabib@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

CEO/Founding Principal Nicole Whyte is recognized as one of the most Influential Leaders in Orange County by the OC Business Journal!

December 15, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to CEO/Founding Principal Nicole Whyte on her recognition as one of the most Influential Leaders in Orange County by the OC Business Journal! Why: Nicole leads over 200 attorneys in 11 offices in the Western U.S. She specializes in family law and complex civil litigation. Of those, 89 are based in the firm’s Newport Beach headquarters. Notable: Nicole was born, raised, and educated in South Africa. She practiced law in Johannesburg before emigrating to the United States in 1991. After quickly learning the U.S. Legal system, Nicole founded Bremer Whyte in 1997. Her husband, Steve Nataupsky, is a managing partner at Knobbe Martens. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

New Executive Order Prohibits Federal Contractors from Engaging in DEI Through Employment and Procurement Activities

April 27, 2026 — Laura De Santos & Monica Prieto - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
On March 26, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14398, entitled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, requiring federal agencies to add contractual language in all federal contracts prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from engaging in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, as defined by the Executive Order (EO). While this EO includes language similar to prior DEI-related orders, it introduces a significant expansion in enforcement by subjecting non-compliant contractors to liability under the False Claims Act (FCA), including exposure to whistleblower actions and qui tam litigation. A qui tam claim is a civil action by a private individual on behalf of the government alleging fraud against federal programs and seeking to recover damages. The new EO states that involvement in any racially discriminatory DEI activities is not only unethical and illegal, but also deemed fraudulent against federal programs because it is material to the government’s payment decisions. The definition of DEI activities here matters, as this EO expands a contractor’s obligations beyond the management of its employment policies and includes prohibitions against funding or expending time or resources on DEI activities and contracting with subcontractors, vendors, or suppliers utilizing DEI programs. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura De Santos, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. De Santos may be contacted at ldesantos@grsm.com

---

Don’t Ignore Prejudgment Interest

February 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to contracts, there may be a clause that provides that untimely payments shall bear interest at a particular rate. Or it may be the statutory rate. That clause will come into play when determining prejudgment interest. In ANY dispute, prejudgment interest can be an important damages component that accrues from the date of the loss. Don’t ignore prejudgment interest. The Fourth District of Florida, in a construction dispute, maintained:

“[I]f a plaintiff establishes that he sustained out-of-pocket loss, prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date of the loss. The trial court has no discretion regarding awarding prejudgment interest and must do so applying the statutory rate of interest in effect at the time the interest accrues.”

Bensusan v. Design Engineering Group, LLC, 2025 WL 3466367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation omitted).

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

---