ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Compels Appraisal Although Coverage Issues Exist

February 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California federal district court granted the insured’s motion to compel appraisal despite the existence of outstanding coverage issues. K4 Dev. LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211337 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6. 2025). The insured owned hotel property. It was insured by ACE while the hotel was under construction. During construction, the hotel suffered rainwater damage due to incomplete roofing systems. The water damaged the interior finishes and furnishings from the 6th floor down to the basement, including 32 guestrooms. The insured’s experts determined that the covered water losses delayed the hotel’s opening by 144 days. The insured submitted a claim for the water damage, covered claim expenses, and delay in opening losses. ACE denied the claim for delay in opening losses, stating that its expert determined the Water Events did not delay the hotel’s opening. ACE, however, did pay for the repair damage caused by the Water Events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

New California Law Mandates Prompt Resolution of Change Order Payment Disputes on Private Works of Improvement

January 05, 2026 — Samuel Bucher, Marc Coats & William S. Hale, P.E. - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On October 10, 2025, Governor Newsom signed SB 440, titled the Private Works Change Order Fair Payment Act. The new law introduces a process and deadlines for handling change order, time extension and payment disputes on private-works construction projects. SB 440 will apply to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, and will remain in effect until January 1, 2030. What Is Changing? Construction projects often undergo changes during the construction process that may result in additional costs for labor and materials. Currently, there are no specific processes mandated for resolving change orders on private works of improvement in California. On January 1, 2017, California implemented Public Contract Code section 9204 to provide a claims resolution process for contractors engaged in public works projects, and SB 440 seeks to implement a similar process for private, nonresidential construction projects. Reprinted courtesy of Samuel Bucher, Pillsbury, Marc Coats, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, P.E., Pillsbury Mr. Bucher may be contacted at samuel.bucher@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Coats may be contacted at marc.coats@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Hale may be contacted at william.hale@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Data Center Construction and the AEC Partner of the Future

April 14, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
During my involvement in designing mobile phone production facilities, the speed of design and construction was critical. Any delay could directly translate into lost revenue. That same logic now applies to data centers, though the stakes are much higher. Instead of optimizing physical production lines, we are constructing infrastructure for digital production. The global data center capacity is expected to nearly double by 2030, and with this level of demand, the traditional project-by-project delivery model begins to show its limitations. Data centers are no longer isolated projects in the traditional sense. They are evolving into repeatable, scalable production systems, making them ideal environments for AEC process and business model innovation. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

What if the Supreme Court Overrules the Reciprocal Tariffs? Plan Now for Refunds, Protests, and Contract Reconciliation

December 15, 2025 — Brett W. Johnson, T. Troy Galan, Cole Craghan & Thomas Williams - Snell & Wilmer
As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the legality of President Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs,” companies that sell goods internationally face a pivotal inflection point. If the tariffs are struck down, the decision will not simply unwind a trade policy — it may trigger a complex refund process involving billions of dollars in tariffs. This will lead to disputes over who receives repayment, and potential friction between suppliers and customers whose contracts passed tariff costs downstream. Such disputes appear to be on the horizon, as the U.S. Supreme Court considered oral arguments on the reciprocal tariffs on November 5, 2025, and several Justices signaled their skepticism about whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) permits the president to impose tariffs unilaterally. While the outcome remains uncertain, businesses that act now to preserve refund rights and clarify contractual obligations may be best positioned to receive refunds and avoid costly disputes if the tariffs are ordered to be repaid. Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer, Cole Craghan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Craghan may be contacted at ccraghan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Risk Associated with Design-Build Project Delivery Method

October 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The design-build project delivery method is when the design-builder (typically the contractor) is responsible for both the design and construction of the project. Thus, the responsibility for both the design and construction falls under the same umbrella and, naturally, carries more risk. The discussion below demonstrates risk involved in the design-build project delivery method, particularly in the government contracting arena:

Design-build contracts are common for construction, renovations, and repair projects, where the government provides the contractor with its requirements, but the contractor is free to exercise its ingenuity in achieving that objective or standard of performance and selecting the means to do so. It is not uncommon for issues to arise in design-build contracts. One of the more common issues is when the contract describes a certain requirement, but later during the design process, the contractor will submit in the 35% or 100% design submittal with a lower requirement. The government will unknowingly approve that design, not realizing the contractor may have “slipped in” or made an error on one of the requirements; thus, the approved 100% design has a lower requirement as compared to the contract. In these situations, we have found that the government is justified in demanding the contractor provide the requirements specified in the RFP and resulting contract.

Thus, our long-held rule has been that the government cannot properly be blamed for approving the design when the contractor failed to inform the government that its design deviated from Task Order minimum requirements.

Appeals of - Meltech Corporation, Inc., ASBCA No. 61766, 2025 WL 2166133 (ASBCA 2025) (internal citations omitted).

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

---

Navigating the DOT’s Interim Final Rule on DBE Certification Standards - and Preparing for the (Bumpy) Road Ahead

October 27, 2025 — Virginia Trunkes - Construction Law Zone
Last week, as a result of the federal government shutdown, news outlets reported on a pause in processing project reimbursements for the massive bi-state Hudson Tunnel Gateway Program and New York City’s Second Avenue Subway line. Beyond the political finger-pointing and investigation into the pause’s impact (the billions of dollars already appropriated remain untouched) is the federal Department of Transportation’s publication, also last week, of its interim final rule (“IFR”) Docket No. DOT–OST–2025–0897. Effective October 3, 2025, this IFR removes from its regulations at 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26 race and gender-based presumptions of social and economic disadvantage from DOT’s regulations governing its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) programs. In doing so, it replaces terms like “race-neutral/race-conscious” with “DBE-neutral/DBE-conscious” frameworks, and adds new sections (§§ 23.81 and 26.111) that require each Unified Certification Program (UCP), i.e., each state’s agency that sets the criteria for firms seeking DBE/ACDBE certification, to reevaluate any currently certified DBE, to recertify any DBE that meets the new certification standards, and to decertify any DBE that does not meet the new certification standards or fails to provide additional information required for submission under the new certification standards. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Virginia Trunkes, Robinson & Cole LLP
Ms. Trunkes may be contacted at vtrunkes@rc.com

---

An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract

January 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.” A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

If We Want Affordable Housing, Local Governments Must Look in the Mirror

October 27, 2025 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In every discussion about Colorado’s housing affordability crisis, the discussion often focuses on the ill effects of construction defect litigation. While that issue certainly affects the supply of attainable for-sale housing, particularly condominiums and townhomes, it is far from the only factor driving up the cost of housing in the Denver Metro area. A new study from the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver (HBA), Development Fee Study: Executive Summary (June 2025), sheds light on another major obstacle to affordability: the staggering fees imposed by local governments before a single shovel of dirt is turned. These costs, often exceeding $60,000 per home, raise the price of new housing and make “attainable” homeownership ever more elusive. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---