ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

FERC Issues Show-Cause Orders: Impacts on California and Other Regional Power Markets

July 13, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
At an open meeting on June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six FERC-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs—PJM Interconnection, ISO New England, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Southwest Power Pool, New York Independent System Operator and California Independent System Operator—along with their transmission owners (TOs), directing each region and the TOs to justify or revise tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive transmission service from the grid. These show-cause orders will impact several power markets across the country, including California. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices

August 11, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy

July 20, 2026 — Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
I. Course of Construction Exclusions Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy. General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

HHMR and Every One of its Partners Recognized by Legal 500 in Denver Elite – Real Estate

April 20, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is pleased to announce its recognition as a Tier 1 firm in the Denver Elite rankings for Real Estate, a category that includes construction law and construction litigation, by The Legal 500. In addition, each of the firm’s partners has been individually recognized in the same rankings. The firm’s individual recognitions include:

• David M. McLain — Tier 1
• Ricky L. Nolen, Jr. — Tier 2
• Lisa Bondy Dunn — Tier 3

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Quick Note: Don’t Spoil Evidence!!!!

March 10, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The phrase “spoliation of evidence” is a phrase that gets used, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. The reason is that if evidence is legitimately spoiled, the opposing party wants an adverse inference jury instruction. There are two potential adverse inference jury instructions dealing with spoliation of evidence, neither of which are good, and one of which you definitely don’t want. A recent case discusses these jury instructions (check here) in a slip and fall personal injury case. The bottom line is that you need to preserve evidence relevant to a claim. Don’t lose it. Don’t intentionally destroy it. Don’t pretend it does not exist. Don’t do all the things that hinder the preservation and ultimate production of the relevant evidence. An adverse inference jury instruction (or an adverse inference implication in a non-jury trial) could be much, much worse. The facts are what the facts are. The best thing you can do is confront the facts. Confront the bad facts just like the good facts. The nature of any dispute is that there will be both good and bad facts. Bad facts can hopefully be explained recognizing there will be bad facts on the other side too. Sometimes, the bad facts warrant major strategic considerations and shifting the focus of how a dispute will be handled and presented. Whatever you do, don’t put yourself in a position where you are spoiling evidence. Once you get an adverse inference instruction, that’s it, as it’s very tough to overcome. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

July 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:

Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”

Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).

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

---

Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

August 25, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Editor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims. At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable. The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

---