Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Insurer’s Federal Suit Dismissed in Favor of Insured’s State Suit

April 14, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insured’s motion to dismiss the insurer’s federal suit for declaratory judgment because the insured filed a more complete action in state court. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmwood Baptist Church, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259762 (S.D. W.V. Dec. 16, 2025). Elmwood purchased a property policy from Church Mutual Insurance Company. After the roof of Elmwood’s property collapsed, the parties disputed the amount Church Mutual owed to Elmwood. Church Mutual filed suit in federal district court asking for a declaration that the policy was “void ab initio,’ or, alternatively, that Church had fully compensated Elmwood for its loss. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Court Resolves Disagreement on the Amount of the Deductible

December 02, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a windstorm caused damage to the insured’s building and repair materials, the court sided with the insured in determining the amount of the deductible. Semaho, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193521 (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2025). Semaho owned two commercial buildings insured under a policy issued by AMCO. The buildings were damaged in a windstorm and Semaho’s contractor stored the building materials for the repairs on one building’s roof. A second windstorm then seriously damaged the building materials stored on the roof. Semaho submitted a claim for the lost building materials. Coverage was undisputed but the parties disagreed over which deductible should apply to Semaho’s claim. The key policy provision stated that the deductible should be calculated separately for the “building” and for certain categories of “personal property,” based on “the value(s) of the property that has sustained loss or damage.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

To Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical Considerations

January 13, 2026 — Gerard J. Onorata - ConsensusDocs
Deciding to settle a construction dispute is often wrought with difficulty, requiring the decision maker to evaluate a number of factors. Nevertheless, there are no hard and fast rules that apply when advising a party whether or not they should settle a dispute. Yet the vast majority of construction disputes do settle before going to trial or arbitration. In fact, recent statistics show that approximately 95% of all civil cases, including construction disputes, settle before trial[1]. However, whether settlement is always the best choice depends on several factors to be discussed here. Merits of Your Case First and foremost are the merits of your claims and defenses against any claims that are asserted against you. Construction disputes are inherently fact sensitive, and the merits of a case are driven by the facts of the dispute. Simple breach of contract actions for balances of unpaid funds for the work and materials that have been provided and installed on a project make weighing the merits of the affirmative claim relatively simple. However, these types of “collection cases” stand in stark contrast to complex construction delay claims for equitable adjustment where there exist competing and numerous causes of the delays. In addition, there are complicated legal principles applicable to whether there is entitlement to compensation for the delay or simply an extension of time. Construction defect claims where technical engineering issues are involved also present a heightened level of complexity that may make such cases difficult to prove on the merits. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

Construction Expert and Judge Living in the Same Hood Is Not Grounds For Recusal

December 08, 2025 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, Nowaczyk v. Daniels Construction (Nov. 4, 2025), a contractor tried to disqualify the trial judge because the judge happened to live in the same neighborhood as a potential expert witness for the homeowners. The court’s response? Proximity isn’t prejudice. The dispute started when homeowners sued Daniels Construction for allegedly botched remodeling work. When the judge disclosed during a hearing that he lived near the plaintiffs’ proposed expert, the defense moved to have him recused from the case. They argued that prior cases involving the same expert had led to recusals. The trial judge, however, made clear there was no personal or professional relationship with the expert and denied the motion. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew J. DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

Government Claiming Contract Is Void Ab Initio by Contractor Knowingly Making False Statements

January 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can the federal government declare a contract “void ab initio” or void from the beginning? Yes, if the government can “prove that the contractor (a) obtained the contract by (b) knowingly (c) making a false statement.” MLB Transportation v. U.S., 2025 WL 2962897, *8 (Fed.Cl. 2025) (citation omitted).

Where a contractor “obtained [a] contract by knowingly falsely stating that it was a small business … [the] government contract [is] tainted from its inception by fraud [and] is void ab initio.” The general rule that “a Government contract tainted by fraud or wrong-doing is void ab initio … protects the integrity of the federal contracting process and safeguards the public from undetectable threats to the public fisc.” A contract found to be void ab initio has “no legal effect,” and is “[n]ull from the beginning, as from the first moment when a contract is entered into.”

MLB Transportation, supra (citations omitted).

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

Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications

March 31, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages. In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Kahana Feld Partner Pascal Arteaga Achieves Prestigious TBLS Construction Law Board Certification

January 21, 2026 — Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that partner Pascal Arteaga has successfully passed the Texas Board of Legal Specialization (TBLS) Construction Law Board Certification Exam—one of the most rigorous specialty certifications in the state. The exam tests deep knowledge of construction-related statutes, contracts, claims, and project delivery systems and is only available to attorneys who first meet demanding experience, continuing legal education, and peer-reference requirements. This achievement reflects Pascal’s extensive experience across critical areas of construction law and his dedication to providing top-level service to his clients. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

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

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES