Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test

March 31, 2026 — Catherine Maronski - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards. The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Maronski, Robinson Cole
Ms. Maronski may be contacted at cmaronski@rc.com

Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

May 12, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site. This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it. The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Subrogation Insight: Expert Testimony Admissible Despite Post-Loss Repairs

December 30, 2025 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ghaznavi v. Arby Constr., Inc., No. 14-24-00213-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 839, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly excluded the plaintiffs’, Kambiz Moavenzadeh Ghaznavi and Anahita Nokkonejad (collectively, the Ghaznavis), liability expert. The case arose from a fire at the Ghaznavis’ residence. The trial court held that because the Ghaznavis’ expert did not physically inspect certain fire damaged areas before they were repaired, the expert’s testimony was unreliable and thus inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the expert’s review of photographs of the repaired areas and his testimony explaining his opinions were sufficient to survive summary judgment. In this case, the Ghaznavis’ hired the defendant, Arby Construction Inc. d/b/a National Residential Services (Arby Constr.), to install new tiling in a corridor inside their home. The corridor was adjacent to the garage. While Arby Constr. was performing the work, the Ghaznavis asked the defendant to fix an outlet inside the garage that was not working. Arby Constr. installed a new wire that connected the outlet to the garage door opener at the ceiling of the garage. Less than 2 months later, a fire occurred in the garage area. The fire marshal placed the origin of the fire in the ceiling of the corridor adjacent to the garage. The fire marshal’s report stated that “faulty wiring in the corridor behind the garage” caused the fire. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Risks of Using an AI Chatbot for Legal Advice: Lessons from United States v. Heppner

April 08, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Imagine that you are an executive (who is not a lawyer) and are concerned about what your company plans to do is legal. You could call your lawyer who might bill you for the call. Or, you can ask your AI chatbot, such as Claude or ChatGPT, about the legal risk. The chatbot will likely compliment you on the incisive question, provide you with highly confident answer (that may or may not be right) and will not bill you on an hourly basis. That is essentially what financial services executive Bradley Heppner did. It did not end well. A federal court recently ruled that Heppner’s chats with the AI tool Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. That means that the other side (in this case, the federal government) could get access to his chatbot prompts, uploads and responses, and learn a great deal about, for example, whether Heppner knew what he was doing was illegal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

FTC Issues Warning Letters to Property Management Software Providers on Price Transparency

January 26, 2026 — Christine Tenley, Patrick A. Garcia & Michael Hettig - Lewis Brisbois
Atlanta, Ga. (December 23, 2025) - On December 8, 2025 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent what it is describing as a “Warning Letter” to companies that provide property management software to landlords (“Software Providers”). While the letter does not speak specifically to landlords, landlords can still use the information contained in the letter to adopt best practices to avoid potential enforcement action. The Warning Letter references two high profile civil enforcement actions the FTC has undertaken in the last two years: FTC v. Invitation Homes, and FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al., two cases in which the FTC targeted landlords for what it deemed unfair or deceptive advertising practices. Citing those cases, the FTC warns software providers that they must provide platforms on which landlords can accurately advertise the total monthly cost of a rental property rather than simply advertising the monthly rental payment. The FTC then warns that failure to create platforms that share the total monthly payments may result in enforcement action. Reprinted courtesy of Christine Tenley, Lewis Brisbois, Patrick A. Garcia, Lewis Brisbois and Michael Hettig, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Tenley may be contacted at Christine.Tenley@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Garcia may be contacted at Patrick.Garcia@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hettig may be contacted at Michael.Hettig@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

Midwest Team Secures Resolution of Matter for Homeowners’ Association Client, Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees

February 10, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Kansas City/Wichita Partner Alan L. Rupe and Kansas City Associate Delaney McCoy recently achieved a victory on behalf of their client, a homeowners’ association that was sued after denying a solar panel application. The plaintiff homeowners challenged the association’s decision in court, and after extensive—and costly—litigation, the court ultimately determined that the dispute was not yet ripe for judicial review. With that threshold issue resolved, the parties were able to work collaboratively to address the solar panel matter itself. But one significant question remained: whether the association was entitled to recover its legal fees under the declaration, despite the American Rule, which generally requires each party to bear its own costs. The client felt understandably taken advantage of because this issue could—and should—have been resolved without litigation. Considerable time and resources were diverted from the community for the advantage of a single household, so the Lewis Brisbois team continued to advocate for the association’s contractual right to recover fees. After oral argument, the Court agreed, enforcing the fee‑shifting provisions in the governing documents and ruling in favor of the homeowners’ association. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

“The Superintendent Told Us to Do It:” Why Verbal Approval May Not Be Enough

June 02, 2026 — Andrew Lintner - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In construction defect litigation, one scenario appears repeatedly: a subcontractor installs work in a manner that differs from the plans, specifications, manufacturer instructions, or industry standards after being verbally directed to do so by the general contractor, superintendent, architect, or owner’s representative. At the time, the decision may seem minor. The project is moving quickly, the field team wants to maintain progress, and nobody wants to stop working over what appears to be a small issue. The subcontractor may trust the superintendent or project manager and assume the conversation will be remembered later if questions arise. Years later, however, when the project experiences problems, the people involved may deny the conversation occurred, remember it differently, or simply no longer remember the project. Without written documentation, the subcontractor can find itself defending claims for defective work, even though it performed the installation exactly as directed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Lintner, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Lintner may be contacted at alintner@hhmrlaw.com

Damage from Frozen Pipes Excluded from Coverage

March 31, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Texas law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for damage to the insured’s commercial building due to the bursting of frozen pipes. Barona v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257379 (S.D. Texas Dec. 12, 2025). Freezing weather froze Barona’s plumbing fixtures, causing significant water damage to the commercial property when the plumbing eventually expanded and burst. State Farm sent an inspector. During the inspection, Barona stated that he turned off the heat to his building but did not shut off the water supply or drain the pipes. State Farm denied covered based on the policy’s exclusion for frozen plumbing. 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