Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Expands with New Office in Foxborough, Massachusetts

June 08, 2026 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Foxborough, MA — April 1st, 2026— Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. (SDV), a national law firm focused exclusively on representing policyholders in insurance coverage disputes, is pleased to announce the opening of its new office in Foxborough, Massachusetts. The expansion marks another milestone in the firm’s continued growth and deepens SDV’s ability to serve clients across the region. The new location strengthens SDV’s presence in Massachusetts and expands the firm’s capacity to support both existing and anticipated client needs in an increasingly complex insurance landscape. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

July 13, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & Wilmer
On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Trend Continues Where Unlicensed Contractors Have No Recourse

July 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There’s been a recent trend in Florida case law that has figuratively “killed” unlicensed contractors. Here’s another one. The moral to this trend and case is simple: make sure you have the proper licenses prior to serving as a contractor under Florida law. Trying to be cute, as seemed to be the situation in this case with a creative argument, is not an argument that will carry the day and your resources will be devoted to being creative versus the ultimate merits of the dispute. In Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski, 2026 WL 1649571 (S.D.Fla. 2026) an owner of real property hired a company to design and construct a spec home on the property. The company and its owner were NOT licensed contractors. The contract stated the company was serving as a “spec developer” and referred to it as the contractor throughout the contract. Other than this, the contract was set up as a cost plus a fee. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

May 14, 2026 — Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning Berman
A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

The GKN Aerospace Chemical Release and the Laws Designed to Address It

July 06, 2026 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On May 21, 2026, a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, California began leaking methyl methacrylate (MMA), a volatile and highly flammable industrial chemical used to manufacture high-strength acrylic plastics. GKN Aerospace makes advanced military and commercial transparencies, such as aircraft canopies, windshields, cabin windows, bullet-resistant glass, and spacecraft windows. In polymer chemistry lingo, MMA is known as a monomer. Monomers are like individual links to a chain. Under the right conditions they link up (react) with each other to form long-chained polymers, or plastics. MMA is an unstable monomer that requires controlled storage conditions to avoid setting off a polymerization (chain) reaction. According to early reports, the MMA tank at GKN Aerospace overheated. The cause of the overheating is not yet clear, but the overheating may have created conditions enabling the MMA to initiate polymerization, which in turn generated heat, which in turn generated pressure, activating the tank’s pressure-relief system and releasing MMA vapor into the atmosphere. Concerns about a runaway reaction, massive release, and explosion led the Orange County Fire Authority to order evacuation of approximately 40,000 residents and closure of thirteen schools. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

Tariffs As Taxes — What Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Means for Contractors and the WSDOT Specifications

March 17, 2026 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In October 2025, we explored a pressing question for public works contractors: should post-contract award tariffs be reimbursable? The crux of that analysis was whether tariffs imposed after contract award constitute a tax under the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications, triggering reimbursement under Section 1-07.1(5)B (“tax changes”). Since then, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump has clarified the legal nature of tariffs in a way that could significantly affect this debate. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the President had the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose broad tariffs on imports. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Claim for Roof Damage Caused by Windstorm

May 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, eliminating the insured’s claim for roof damage due to windstorm. Mulas v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537 (Jan. 30, 2026). The insureds’ commercial property sustained windstorm damage during Hurricane Ian. Westchester denied the claim. The insureds believed Westchester wrongfully denied coverage for roof damage and various interior damage to property. The insureds also argued that Westchester’s actual cash value (ACV) payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. The insureds sued and Westchester moved for summary judgment. Westchester argued the roof damage was not covered because Hurricane Ian did not cause the damage. Westchester hired an engineer who determined the roof damage was not caused by wind from Hurricane Ian. Westchester pointed out that the insureds’ expert also found no wind damage on the roof. The insureds offered no other evidence suggesting the hurricane caused roof damage. Therefore, the insureds could not show that Westchester breached the policy by denying coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES