ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

BWB&O Recognized Among 2026 Best Law Firms® in the United States

December 08, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce its inclusion in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms® in the United States, receiving national and regional rankings across multiple practice areas for the sixth consecutive year. National Tier 3

• Construction Law

Regional Tier 1: Orange County

• Family Law
• Personal Injury Law
• Construction Law

Regional Tier 2: Los Angeles and Las Vegas

• Construction Law

San Diego

• Real Estate Litigation

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Brian Newberry Accepted into ABOTA

November 18, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Providence, RI (October 13, 2025) - Lewis Brisbois is pleased to announce that Providence Partner Brian C. Newberry was recently accepted as a new member of the Rhode Island Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) during the organization’s National Board Meeting in Austin, Texas on October 4, 2025. In discussing his acceptance into the organization, Mr. Newberry noted, “It’s an honor to be accepted into ABOTA. Jury trials lie at the heart of the legal system and while our first priority as lawyers is to resolve disputes as economically and efficiently as possible for our clients, part of that pursuit depends on always being ready to present a case to a jury and it is critically important for both our clients and opposing counsel to know we stand at the top of the profession in that regard.” Providence Managing Partner Lauren Motola-Davis stated, “ABOTA sets one of the profession’s highest bars for trial excellence and civility. Brian Newberry not only meets that standard - he exemplifies it. We’re thrilled for him and for ABOTA’s Rhode Island Chapter, and we know he’ll continue to strengthen Lewis Brisbois’ National Trial Practice.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Contractor Turns Former Sears Into Interim High School Following Palisades Wildfires

December 15, 2025 — Jamie Macartney - Construction Executive
On January 7, 2025, the unthinkable happened. Massive wildfires tore through areas of Los Angeles County, burning over 57 acres, leaving lives in shambles as beloved homes and businesses were gone instantly. An evident strain was the destruction the fires set on Palisades Charter High School—colloquially known as Pali High—which left approximately 2,500 students without a campus to go to. This resulted in a return to online learning, a setting too familiar as five years earlier, these students were ripped from their educational experience because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Building schools is in the DNA of C.W. Driver, so when the firm saw the damage to Pali High, the team rushed to create a temporary campus—Pali High South. Through a partnership with design firm Gensler, the former Sears retail building—a Santa Monica landmark—was transformed into a safe, fully equipped learning environment for 2,500 Pali High students just three months after the fires took place. Reprinted courtesy of Jamie Macartney, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

UPDATED: Dominion Sues Feds Over Offshore Wind Project Halt, With Action Possible on Others Shut

February 02, 2026 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
UPDATED: Dominion Energy filed a federal lawsuit Dec. 23 in Norfolk, Va. against the U.S. Interior Dept. immediate construction pause order for its 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind energy project (CVOW) off Virginia Beach, Va., which it developing to begin operation next year. The project is one of five large East Coast offshore wind projects under construction that the federal agency paused, claiming new "national security" risks. Dominion and OSW Project LLC, the entity that includes project co-owner Stonepeak Partners, a private investor, said they seek a temporary restraining order. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

---

SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI

March 03, 2026 — Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery. Facts Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss

April 20, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026). Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds. Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

May 12, 2026 — Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

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

---