Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Call Me Maybe: California’s Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations

November 04, 2025 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s not uncommon in construction claims for there to be Insurance and bond issues, whether it’s tendering a claim to your insurer, or claims against a license, payment, or performance bond. Insurance Code section 790.03 sets forth sixteen (16) unfair claims settlement practices by insurers and sureties including:

Misrepresenting to claimants pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to any coverages at issue.
Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies.
Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The Single Source of Truth in Construction Projects: Reality or Myth?

March 24, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The idea of a single source of truth has been a fundamental part of the digital vision in the AEC industry for many years. From centralized CAD storage to BIM collaboration platforms and, more recently, Common Data Environments, the goal stays the same. Project teams want a reliable place where everyone can access the latest information. The phrase “single source of truth” comes from database and information management practices in the IT world, where the goal was to maintain one authoritative record of data and eliminate data redundancy. As the AEC industry began adopting digital tools, the same idea was applied to project information and workflows. Despite decades of technological progress, the question remains whether “one ring that rules them all” can actually be implemented in real construction projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Construction of $3B Data Center in North Dakota Spurs Annexation Battle

January 13, 2026 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Construction of a $3-billion data center on a 320-acre site in southeastern North Dakota has sparked an annexation dispute between the small city where it is being built and its much larger neighbor, Fargo. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.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

Insured’s Motion to Compel Production of Underwriting Materials Granted

November 04, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Supreme Court of New York granted the insured’s motion to compel the production of underwriting materials related to identifying additional insureds. Church of St. Andrew v. Western World Ins. Co., 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 5, 2025). The Church of St. Andrew (“church”) retained GC Solutions to perform roofing work at its premises. The church required GC Solutions to name it as an additional insured under its general liability policy. GC Solutions provided a Certificate of Insurance naming the church as an additional insured under the policy issued by Western World. While working on the roof, an employee of GC Solutions fell to his death. A wrongful death action was commenced by the decedent’s estate against the church. The church tendered its defense and indemnification to Western World. Western World disclaimed coverage, asserting that the church did not qualify as an additional insured under the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site

March 03, 2026 — Jason Loring - ConsensusDocs
Artificial intelligence has moved from the conference room to the construction site. Contractors are using AI-powered tools to predict schedule delays, monitor safety through drone footage, optimize equipment maintenance and flag potential hazards in real time. These tools deliver genuine efficiency gains, but they also introduce risks that most construction contracts do not anticipate and many project teams aren’t yet equipped to manage. The problem is that AI tools are probabilistic and not determinative, meaning that they can “hallucinate”: generating confident, but completely wrong, information. Your AI scheduling software might therefore predict a delay that never materializes, causing unnecessary resource mobilization. Your drone monitoring might flag a nonexistent safety hazard, stopping work and costing productivity. Or worse, it might miss a real hazard entirely. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Loring, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Loring may be contacted at jloring@joneswalker.com

Washington Court of Appeals Narrows Arbitrator Authority in Construction Dispute

November 21, 2025 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent opinion, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals clarified arbitrator limits in Reecer Creek Excavating v. SRI-Rochlin Construction JV,[1] holding that consequential damage waivers are enforceable, fee-shifting depends on who “substantially prevails,” and arbitration awards can be vacated only in narrow circumstances. Reecer Creek Excavating (“Reecer”) was subcontracted by SRI-Rochlin Construction JV (“SRI”) to perform excavation and paving work on a housing development in Ellensburg, Washington. When payment disputes arose, both parties filed breach-of-contract claims and later agreed to private arbitration. Their arbitration agreement included terms mandating that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” and providing for an exception to the finality of the award where the arbitrator exceeded its authority. After a multi-day arbitration, the arbitrator found both parties partly at fault - Reecer for incomplete and defective work, and SRI for withholding certain payments. The net award favored Reecer by about $55,000, with each side ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

AIA Waivers Under Fire: Why Post-Completion Losses May Still Be Actionable

January 26, 2026 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
On its face, the power of a waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract is profound. It bars otherwise actionable – and sometimes egregious – losses resulting from contractor carelessness before they can ever get started. One question courts have long battled with is the limits to the lasting effects of such a waiver. Whether the waiver power can be transferred amongst parties, applied to third parties or used with policies taken out after construction completion are among the few grey areas that have kept subrogation practitioners and the courts busy. Recently, a federal court in Idaho clarified its position on the power to waive subrogation. In Seneca Ins. Co. v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00340-BLW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251777 (D. Idaho), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) addressed whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract, signed between an owner and the general contractor, applied to the subsequent owner of a building. In doing so, the court looked at the limiting language of the waiver as well as the contractual posture of the subsequent owner. Ultimately, the court found the waiver inapplicable, denying the motion for summary judgment of Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff McAlvain Construction, Inc. (McAlvain). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES