ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Maryland Enacts Climate-Cost Study Over Veto, New Jersey Advances Climate Superfund Proposal as Earlier State Laws Face Ongoing Court Challenges

January 21, 2026 — Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Maryland lawmakers have overridden the governor’s veto to enact legislation directing a statewide assessment of climate-related costs, while New Jersey lawmakers are preparing a January committee hearing for the State’s pending Climate Superfund Act. Together, these actions underscore continued state-level interest in both study-based and liability-focused climate-cost attribution frameworks, even as four separate lawsuits challenging state climate superfund statutes in New York and Vermont proceed in federal court. Maryland Legislature Overrides Veto to Advance Climate-Cost Assessment On December 16, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Governor Wes Moore’s veto of S.B. 149 / H.B. 128, the “Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Total Assessed Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Study and Reports” Act. The vote followed the Governor’s announcement, just days earlier, that his administration would fully fund the study mandated by the bill, effectively reversing his prior veto. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

California’s Fair Payment Act: What Every Owner, Developer, and Contractor Should Know About SB 440

November 18, 2025 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
While most states have enacted various forms of prompt payment laws for construction projects, California Senate Bill 440, known as the Private Works Change Order Fair Payment Act, marks a pivotal change in how payment obligations related to change orders are handled on private construction projects. Signed into law on October 10, 2025 by Governor Newsom, its implementation will affect owners, developers, contractors, and subcontractors alike. Importantly, it sets clear standards for processing change-order claims, imposing decisive deadlines and remedies. The Big Picture SB 440, effective for private contracts beginning on January 1, 2026, establishes a formal claim resolution process for work stemming from change orders on private projects. Key provisions include:

• A contractor or subcontractor may submit a claim (for a time extension or additional compensation) and the owner must provide a written statement within 30 days identifying disputed and undisputed portions.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

---

So You Want to Build a Safety Plan

November 18, 2025 — Construction Executive
As unique and nuanced as each construction project, so are the safety needs of each company handling the project. To learn how to tailor a safety program to your company’s needs, Construction Executive sat down with Tony Foster, senior EHS director at Skanska. From how-tos on getting started, creating buy-in and keeping up to date on OSHA standards, to taking advantage of the latest safety technology, here is his insider knowledge: What type of safety program is best for which kinds of businesses? (i.e. small vs. large firm; regional vs. national; architect and design vs. manufacturer; general contractor vs. subcontractor; etc.) The approach to safety shouldn’t change by project, no matter how big or small. The most important task is the project, but also making the people who are working on the project feel like they are a part of the program and can ask questions about any concerns that they have. There needs to be visibility of leaders on the project, and an open line of communication when it comes to safety on the worksite. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Successful KF Defense Results in Dismissal with Prejudice

January 13, 2026 — Elliott Wright & William "Pat" Durland - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld Partner Elliott Wright and Senior Counsel William “Pat” Durland secured a major victory for their client with a complete dismissal of all claims by establishing that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Texas Tort Claims Act’s jurisdictional prerequisites through our Plea to the Jurisdiction. Our Plea to the Jurisdiction demonstrated that governmental immunity applies unless a Plaintiff can prove a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver, and that the Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving such a waiver. In this case, we showed that the Plaintiff provided no timely statutory notice as required by §101.101 of the TTCA and the City Charter’s six-month notice requirement, making jurisdiction impossible to invoke. Without proper notice—formal or actual—the court has no power to hear the case, and the defect cannot be cured by amendment.  Reprinted courtesy of Elliott Wright, Kahana Feld and William "Pat" Durland, Kahana Feld Mr. Wright may be contacted at ewright@kahanafeld.com Mr. Durland may be contacted at wdurland@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

---

Amended Again?! Critical Changes to RPAPL § 881: What New York Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know

March 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder & David Polazzi - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Recent amendments to New York’s RPAPL § 881 will significantly change how project teams obtain and maintain access to adjoining properties for construction-related work. The 2025 amendment signed into law by Governor Hochul, and the newly enacted 2026 revisions, will directly impact general contractors (GCs) and construction managers (CMs), as well as their trade contractors who regularly confront neighbor‑access, support‑of‑excavation, and protection‑of‑adjoining‑property challenges. Although we do not advise that GCs and CMs get involved in the “weeds” of license agreements or the prosecution of an action to obtain access pursuant to an RPAPL § 881 action, which are typically owner responsibilities, GCs and CMs should understand the change in law, as there may be circumstances where they are responsible for securing access. This alert outlines the key statutory changes and explains the operational, scheduling, insurance, and risk‑management implications for the New York construction industry. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and David Polazzi, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Polazzi may be contacted at dpolazzi@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Navigating Turbulent Waters Ashore: Insurance Lessons from a Navy Project Dispute

February 02, 2026 — Cary D. Steklof & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims. Background In October 2014, a general contractor (“GC”) was awarded a contract by the Navy to renovate buildings at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola. The GC subcontracted work to various subcontractors, including metal framing and drywall, to a subcontractor named EKE. Reprinted courtesy of Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@hunton.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Contractor Entitled to Defense Under Subcontractor’s Policy

March 10, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the contractor’s insurer finding that the sumcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend the contractor. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. TBR Construction, LLC, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2177 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025). Greenscape Homes, LLC was the general contractor for a residential development. Greenscape hired TBR Construction, LLC as a carpentry-framing subcontractor pursuant to a “Trade Contractor Agreement.” The Trade Agreement required TBR to name Greenscape as an additional insured. TBR was insured by Utica. Greenscape was insured by Navigators. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.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

---