ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Seventh Circuit Finds “Additional Insured” Requirements Met Where Non-Party Subcontractor Was Proximate Cause of Underlying Injuries

February 23, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Atlanta Gas Light Company et al v. Navigators Ins. Co., Nos. 24-2888 & 24-2889 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals assessed whether an upstream contractor was an “additional insured” under an umbrella policy issued to its subcontractor. Atlanta Gas and Southern Company Gas (“AGL”) hired United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”) to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned throughout Georgia. In 2018, USIC failed to mark a gas line in Homerville, Georgia, and a boring company struck it, leading to an explosion that severely injured three women. The victims settled their claims with USIC but did not come to terms with AGL. AGL eventually did settle with the victims, but only after they sued AGL in Georgia state court (the “Underlying Suits”). AGL’s service agreement with USIC required USIC to obtain primary and excess liability insurance coverage that included AGL as an additional insured. Because USIC’s settlement with the victims exhausted its primary policy, AGL tendered the defense and indemnification of the Underlying Suits to USIC’s excess insurer, Navigators. Navigators denied the request on the ground that AGL was not an “additional insured” under the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Finding of No Coverage for Interior Leak

March 24, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying California law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that water damage caused by a leaking pipe over time was not covered under the insured’s homeowners’ policy. Mojica v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32405 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). A small hole, slightly larger than a pen tip in size, developed in a pressurized hot water pipe. The resulting leak lasted for nearly six days and released enough water to saturate and ruin all the subflooring and flooring in the insureds’ home. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

The Dominguez Case and Deed Fraud: Who Criminals Target and How to Protect Yourself Against Fraud

November 04, 2025 — Lauren P. Merdinger, Ryan D. Konsdorf, Jordin Pettit & Alison Tobin - Snell & Wilmer
Arizonans should be aware of a recent decision from the Arizona Supreme Court that increases consequences for unsuspecting victims of deed fraud. Deeds are official documents that memorialize the owner of real property. When real property is bought, inherited, or otherwise conveyed, the deed is transferred to the new owner, who formally records the document with the county in which the real property exists to signify a change in ownership. However, scammers can create fraudulent deeds by forging landowner’s signatures, purporting to transfer the real property without the rightful owner’s consent. The Arizona Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Dominguez will impact victims of deed fraud moving forward, as it holds that if certain conditions are met, a recorded fraudulent deed can strip landowners of their property rights.1 The Case In Estate of Magdalena Rios De Dominguez v. Renee Kay Dominguez, the Arizona Supreme Court was asked to address a family dispute over an unoccupied piece of real property in Maricopa County.2 In 1995, Magdalena and Isidro Dominguez acquired the property in question. After the couple divorced in 1998, their son Jose and his wife Renee recorded a deed in 2003 purporting to convey the property to themselves, and Jose and Renee began paying the taxes on the property from thereon. In 2020, Magdalena discovered the 2003 recorded deed and claiming it was forged, filed a “quiet title” suit asking the Court to declare her the rightful owner of the property. Reprinted courtesy of Lauren P. Merdinger, Snell & Wilmer, Ryan D. Konsdorf, Snell & Wilmer and Jordin Pettit, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Merdinger may be contacted at lmerdinger@swlaw.com Mr. Konsdorf may be contacted at rkonsdorf@swlaw.com Ms. Pettit may be contacted at jpettit@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Soot Constitutes Property Damage

March 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements

April 14, 2026 — Abby Dvorkin - Snell & Wilmer
The ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project. Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Abby Dvorkin, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Dvorkin may be contacted at advorkin@swlaw.com

---

At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages

March 17, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages. The Nabors Case In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Anatomy of an Insurance Dispute

November 04, 2025 — Will S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In early 2025, we participated in a panel discussion about the similarities and differences in the process of resolving a disputed insurance claim. We were both so taken by the striking differences in the process and had such a good time learning about each other’s process that we decided to prepare this joint article to share with a wider audience. Comparatively examining the anatomy of an insurance dispute in the US and the UK is an exercise in contrasts. In many ways, the two are strikingly opposite. Here, we examine, from start to finish, how the process differs in the two jurisdictions and how those differences may contribute to different outcomes, and discuss what lessons perhaps can be gleaned from each other’s experience. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Will S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com

---

Toolbox Talk Series: GenAI Document Review

January 06, 2026 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
This month's installment of the Toolbox Talk Series explored the use of Generative AI in document review, which as construction lawyers know can be voluminous. Jack Bandlow and Travis Olson from BRG provided an overview of how lawyers can use GenAI to make document review in construction litigation more efficient. Like other uses of GenAI, it is a tool that is not designed to replace lawyers. Rather it helps eliminate or reduce mundane or tedious tasks that are not the highest and best use of a lawyer's time. The AI-powered document review platforms are designed to recognize patterns in documents and transforms words and text into "vectors" to group concepts with similar meanings. For example, whereas a traditional keyword search for "weather delay" will only return hits on that keyword, a search utilizing vectoring will also search for conceptually similar terms, even if the keyword does not match. These tools can use natural language searches to return results that a responsive to the prompt. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

---