Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Quick Note: If You Want to Recover Attorney’s Fees In a Contractual Dispute, Include a Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees Provision

January 21, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you want the ability to recover attorney’s fees in the event of a contractual dispute, include a prevailing party attorney’s fees. Negotiate this point on the front end. Not doing so will hinder your ability to make the argument that you should be entitled to attorney’s fees due to a breach of the contract. In a recent case, the prevailing party relied on an indemnification provision to create the argument for attorney’s fees even though the action had NOTHING to do with indemnity. This was shot down on appeal as a party can’t use an indemnification provision to create that attorney’s fees argument UNLESS the provision is expressly clear on this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Seven Practice Areas in 2026 Best Law Firms

January 06, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
November 6, 2025) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for 'Appellate Practice,' 'Commercial Litigation,' ‘Insurance Law,’ 'Litigation - Construction,' ‘Litigation - Labor and Employment,’ ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ and ‘Transportation Law,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 27 metro regions in its 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®. In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national rankings, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories: Akron

Bet-the-Company Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Tax Law
Trusts and Estates

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

End of an (Endangerment) Era

February 23, 2026 — Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.5 Reprinted courtesy of Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer, Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Battle Looms as Feds Order Washington State Coal Plant to Stay Open

January 21, 2026 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
Just days away from closure and a $600-million remake as a gas-powered facility, an independent power producer-owned coal-fired power plant in Washington state is ordered by the Trump administration to remain open through mid-March 2026—and likely longer—setting up a battle with state and company officials. Shutdown of the 730-MW plant, operating since 1972, was timed to comply with a state law banning coal power generation in 2026 and beyond. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

Tutor Perini Damages Trial Is Set Over Costly Philadelphia Hotel Floor Slab Problems

December 08, 2025 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Tutor Perini Building Corp. faces a potentially expensive damages trial next year after a Pennsylvania state court judge ruled in late October that the company breached its contract with the developer of a 51-story downtown Philadelphia hotel on which floor slab deflections delayed curtain-wall installation and added to completion delays and cost overruns. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Washington Court of Appeals Narrows Arbitrator Authority in Construction Dispute

November 21, 2025 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent opinion, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals clarified arbitrator limits in Reecer Creek Excavating v. SRI-Rochlin Construction JV,[1] holding that consequential damage waivers are enforceable, fee-shifting depends on who “substantially prevails,” and arbitration awards can be vacated only in narrow circumstances. Reecer Creek Excavating (“Reecer”) was subcontracted by SRI-Rochlin Construction JV (“SRI”) to perform excavation and paving work on a housing development in Ellensburg, Washington. When payment disputes arose, both parties filed breach-of-contract claims and later agreed to private arbitration. Their arbitration agreement included terms mandating that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” and providing for an exception to the finality of the award where the arbitrator exceeded its authority. After a multi-day arbitration, the arbitrator found both parties partly at fault - Reecer for incomplete and defective work, and SRI for withholding certain payments. The net award favored Reecer by about $55,000, with each side ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Indiana District Court Finds Crane Inspection Services Do Not Trigger “Professional Services” Exclusion in Liability Policy

February 17, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Crane 1 Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Continental Ins. Co., 23-cv-205 (N.D. Ind. Jan 12, 2026), the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana had occasion to interpret the scope and meaning of the term “professional services” in an excess liability policy exclusion. By way of background, Robert Coppage was crushed by a crane while at work. He was seriously injured and later received a significant settlement in a state court civil action against the company that inspected the crane, Crane1. Crane1 sought coverage for the settlement under a first layer excess policy issued by Continental Insurance Company, which included an exclusion for any “liability arising out of the actual or alleged rendering of, or failure to render, any professional services by the Insured or any other person for whose acts the Insured is legally responsible.” The underlying complaint alleged that Crane1 was negligent in its modification, services, maintenance, inspection, and/or repair of the crane. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Fixed Price, Fluid Quantities: The Hidden Risks in Lump Sum Agreements with Variable Units

November 21, 2025 — Virginia Trunkes - Construction Law Zone
Lump sum construction agreements are the most basic of the different design-bid-build options: the contractor agrees to complete the entire scope of work for a fixed price, and assumes most of the quantity and cost risks. If the contractor’s actual costs exceed its estimates, the contractor absorbs the loss. Adding a clause into the construction agreement that allows unit quantities to increase or decrease based on actual job quantities creates a mechanism that can reduce the risk of estimating, but it is a clause that should be carefully drafted and closely guarded. There are times when it makes sense for parties to deviate from their lump sum agreement and allow for greater flexibility: when there are uncertainties in site conditions or scope, and/or to reduce disputes over changed conditions. The parties can introduce elements of unit-price contracts into the lump sum framework, either choosing to shift the risk entirely to one party or the other, or sharing the risk, e.g., by including an equitable adjustment clause that allows for a price adjustment if the variation exceeds a certain threshold. Even with that balance, incorporating opportunities for adjustments can favor more than just the contractor: it creates a disincentive for the contractor to inflate unit prices to hedge against quantity risks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Virginia Trunkes, Robinson & Cole
Ms. Trunkes may be contacted at vtrunkes@rc.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES