ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Measure Twice, Cut (the Check) Once: Liability for Cybercrime and How to Avoid It

December 15, 2025 — Curt Martin, Richard Volack & Quinn Kuriger - ConsensusDocs
The well-known maxim among carpenters – “measure twice, cut once” – serves as a prudent reminder in the context of construction progress payments, which have become increasingly vulnerable to cybercriminal activity. Consider the following scenario: a joint venture contractor had been receiving progress payments via wire transfer from the project owner. A cybercriminal infiltrated the contractor’s IT infrastructure, identified a pending invoice, and impersonated an employee to redirect the payment. The hacker initially requested that the funds be sent to a new account in rural New York under the general contractor’s name, rather than to the joint venture’s established Houston account. The owner wisely inquired why it should pay the general contractor and not the joint venture who the owner had paid on the prior twenty-nine progress payments. The hacker quickly corrected its request, submitted a new request that misspelled the joint venture’s name, and specified ACH to a third bank, this time in Florida. Despite these glaring red flags, the owner less wisely wired $460,000 to the hacker’s account. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. , Richard Volack, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Quinn Kuriger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com Mr. Kuriger may be contacted at qkuriger@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Balancing the Right to Repair With Evidence Preservation in Construction Defect Litigation

April 20, 2026 — Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer - Construction Executive
Every major construction project comes with risk, whether it’s a warehouse build, a multifamily development or a major renovation. Parties tend to be aligned when things are proceeding as planned. But when something goes wrong—cracked concrete, water intrusion, systems that don’t perform as expected—those interests can quickly diverge. Property owners are often caught in the middle when construction defects surface. They’re expected to act quickly to limit damage and costs. But they also have legal obligations to preserve evidence and allow potentially responsible parties, such as contractors or designers, to observe testing, demolition and repairs. Additionally, owners often have duties to lenders and investors to fix problems promptly and pursue claims against those responsible. Meanwhile, contractors and other parties have obligations of their own—not to interfere with repairs and not to delay mitigation efforts while investigations are underway. What follows will examine how those competing responsibilities play out in construction defect disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Microscopic Soot, Major Win: Policyholder Coverage Expands

January 06, 2026 — Scott P. DeVries & Natalie Reed - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a recent opinion, the 8th Circuit rejected an insurer’s attempt to expand insurer victories in a COVID-19 context to other more traditional claims of property damage. Reaffirming long standing principles, the court held soot and water damage associated with a fire constituted “direct physical loss or damage” under a commercial property insurance policy. The policyholder, Maxus Metropolitan, sued their insurer, Travelers, which had refused to reimburse Maxus for remediation costs associated with a fire at their building. The dispute arose after one of six buildings in a complex owned by Maxus caught fire. Travelers covered part of the damage for the building that caught fire. However, seven months after the fire, Maxus learned of soot and water damage throughout the other five buildings, some of which were under construction and some that had residents. The commercial property policy Travelers issued to Maxus covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss…or damage.” Travelers refused to reimburse for the remediation and in response Maxus sued Travelers for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay in Missouri. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Natalie Reed, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@hunton.com Ms. Reed may be contacted at nreed@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

California Court Affirms $1.8 Million Judgment Against HOA for Failing to Investigate and Remediate Water Intrusion

November 04, 2025 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
When an HOA ignores its duties under its covenants and restrictions, the consequences can be devastating. In Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2025, No. H052560), a Santa Clara couple secured a $1.8 million judgment after their condominium was rendered uninhabitable due to water intrusion, mold, and a sinkhole caused by an abandoned well beneath the property. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding that the HOA’s delay, deception, and failure to act breached its duties under the CC&Rs. What Went Wrong at Rancho Palma Grande HOA Retirees Doug Ridley and Sherry Shen owned a condominium in Santa Clara County. In 2018, their tenants discovered persistent water pooling in the crawlspace beneath the unit - part of the building’s common area under the HOA’s control. The issue worsened over time, culminating in severe water damage, mold growth, and ultimately, a sinkhole beneath the living room floor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move

April 27, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers. FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract

January 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.” A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Construction and Design Contracts—They Are More Important Than You Might Think! (Law Note)

January 26, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
As regular readers of this Blog know, contracts are extremely important for all parties involved in a construction project. While verbal contracts can be enforced, a written contract, which is finely-tuned to your specific project, can save you a lot of time and money later on if the proverbial poo hits the fan. I recently read AIA’s take on contracts, in their Construction Risk Brief (which you should subscribe to [free] if you have not already). Their featured article is on “Best Practices for Construction Contracts”. In the piece, they discuss 7 key points to address in each contract. I concur for the most part, although want to point out that some of them (such as the regular monitoring and documentation bullet point) are deserving of their own post, as there is a *lot* that can and does go wrong during the construction administration phase. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---