ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Reminder: You Can’t Make Others Indemnify You for Your Own Actions

January 13, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken about Virginia Code 11-4.1 and the prohibition on forcing others to indemnify for the actions of the indemnitees on a few occasions here at Construction Law Musings (See Uniwest Posts). The Western District of Virginia gave its take on indemnification clauses and why they need to be carefully drafted in a December 2024 case, Sauer Construction, LLC v. MC3 Solutions, LLC et al. In Sauer, the Court looked at, among other things, an indemnification provision between MC3, a subcontractor to Sauer, and MC3s sub-subcontractor, Bonitz Flooring Group. This was the relatively typical construction dispute where a general contractor sues a subcontractor and then that subcontractor sues its supplier and sub-subcontractors for indemnity pursuant to its contract. When faced with the indemnification claim, Bonitz argued that the indemnification provision violated the Va. Code 11-4.1 because it required Bonitz to indemnify MC3 for MC3’s actions. The provision follows the break. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Georgia HB 676: A Bill Property Owners and Contractors Should Watch

March 24, 2026 — Robert Lafayette - The Construction Seyt
Property owners, contractors, and others dealing with mechanics and materialmen’s liens in Georgia should keep an eye on HB 676, which is currently making its way through the Georgia General Assembly. The bill aims to curb misuse of the lien process and provide additional remedies to those challenging a frivolous lien filing. What HB 676 Would Do HB 676 would add a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 44-14-366.6) to the mechanics and materialmen’s lien statutes. If a lien is filed “without substantial justification or that is not made in good faith or that is made with malice or a wrongful purpose,” this new Code section would impose a fine of $1,500 per lien on the lien claimant, in addition to any attorney’s fees or court costs incurred by the party challenging the lien. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Lafayette, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Lafayette may be contacted at rlafayette@seyfarth.com

---

New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void

February 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The 2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue. On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

California’s Retention Reform on Private Construction Projects

February 17, 2026 — Michael McKeeman - The Construction Seyt
Retention has long been a contentious issue in California construction. Traditionally, owners withheld retention of 10% from each progress payment until completion, arguing it was necessary to ensure performance, quality and timely delivery. Contractors and subcontractors, however, often struggled with cash flow, payroll, and material costs while waiting months—sometimes even years—for withheld retention. Recognizing the financial challenges contractors and subcontractors face, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 61 (“SB 61”), now codified under California Civil Code Section 8811 and effective January 1, 2026, limiting retention to 5% on private works of improvement, aligning with the public works standard in place since 2012. The law’s intent is clear—ease financial strain on contractors and subcontractors while still providing owners with security (albeit reduced) with respect to project completion. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael McKeeman, Seyfarth
Mr. McKeeman may be contacted at

---

EPA, Maryland Sue DC Water Over Massive Potomac River Sewage Spill

May 14, 2026 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The state of Maryland and the federal government have filed separate lawsuits against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), both alleging that the agency’s failure to address longstanding deterioration in the Potomac Interceptor contributed to a weeklong release of more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River this past January. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.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

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

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

---