Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Congratulations to Reno Partner Karen Baytosh for Securing a Complete Dismissal via a Motion for Summary Judgment

July 13, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce that Reno Partner Karen Baytosh received a significant victory on behalf of the firm’s Developer Client in a high-exposure personal injury matter. Plaintiff, a teenager, was struck by an intoxicated driver while walking her dog at night, sustaining catastrophic injuries requiring 24-hour critical care for the remainder of her life. Plaintiff’s Guardian brought suit against the drunk driver and her husband, the City, and BWB&O’s Developer Clients, alleging that the City and Developers failed to improve street lighting and install a sidewalk that would have prevented the accident. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

New York Climate Superfund Rulings Put Vermont Law in Focus

October 20, 2026 — Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers, Jillian Marullo & Marcus Manca - Pillsbury
A second federal judge has struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act and barred its enforcement. On September 23, 2026, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision granting summary judgment to the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declaring the Act unconstitutional, and permanently enjoining New York officials from enforcing it in United States v. New York, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2026). Judge Castel’s decision closely tracks the Northern District of New York’s August 31 decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026). Both courts held that the Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts New York’s effort to impose strict liability through a climate attribution and cost recovery framework based on interstate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Both also held that the foreign affairs doctrine preempts the Act as applied to fossil fuel activity outside the United States. On September 24, the Northern District entered Rule 54(b) judgment implementing its August 31 decision, enjoining Attorney General Letitia James and DEC Commissioner Amanda Lefton from implementing or enforcing the Act and permitting an immediate appeal of the preemption claims. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Marcus Manca, 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 Mr. Manca may be contacted at marcus.manca@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

When Arbitrators Overreach: Utah Supreme Court Trims an Award Built on an Unpled Claim

November 02, 2026 — Tyson J. Prisbrey & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer
Construction industry participants have long favored arbitration to resolve disputes, prizing its speed, confidentiality, and finality over traditional litigation. That finality, however, depends on arbitrators staying within the bounds of what the parties actually put before them. In RV Holdings 4, LLC, et al. v. Standard Fiber Investors, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by awarding damages on a claim the prevailing party never submitted for decision. The dispute arose from a management-fee relationship between Standard Fiber, a bedding manufacturer, and several affiliated “Ridgeview” entities that provided financial and accounting oversight services. After Standard Fiber stopped paying management fees in 2020, the parties pursued their claims in arbitration. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand sought recovery under two specific theories: that a 2006 management services agreement remained in effect, and alternatively, that an oral “50/50 Agreement” entitled it to a share of fees paid to an affiliated entity. Notably, Ridgeview never asserted a claim for breach of a separate 2014 fee arrangement, and affirmatively disavowed reliance on it. The arbitrator rejected both of Ridgeview’s submitted theories and instead awarded Ridgeview $725,000 based on that unpled 2014 agreement. The district court confirmed the award, concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally related to the parties’ arguments, including evidence Standard Fiber itself introduced about the 2014 arrangement. Reprinted courtesy of Tyson J. Prisbrey, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Prisbrey may be contacted at tprisbrey@swlaw.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Miller Act Payment Bond Claim “No Nos!”

October 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent federal district court opinion, Sauer Construction, LLC v. United Structures of Georgia, LLC, 2026 WL 2522849 (M.D.Fla. 2026), addressed two worthy considerations when it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim. And, when I am talking about considerations, I am really talking about “no-nos.” These are things you don’t do. First, don’t file an untimely Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Make sure, as a claimant, you file that lawsuit within one year from your final furnishing. In this case, the subcontractor claimant did not and tried to argue around the statute of limitations with an equitable tolling argument, i.e., that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled to accommodate the late filing of the lawsuit. Guess what? The subcontractor was not successful. You are fighting an uphill (losing) battle when arguing equitable tolling because “traditional equitable tolling principles require that the claimant demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment.” Sauer Construction, supra. This means you need ultra-persuasive evidence to support such equitable tolling principles. Actually, having this evidence is doubtful. Thus, timely file the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason not to. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/15/26) – The World Cup’s Effect on Commercial Real Estate, Megadeals Lift CRE Sales and Algorithmic Pricing Lawsuits Continue

July 27, 2026 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, DOT earmarks $1.73B in BUILD grants, federal housing bill becomes law, data center surge cools off, and more!

Data center planning cooled off month over month from “extraordinary levels” to start the summer, while other areas of construction finally picked up a little steam. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced $1.73 billion in 2026 BUILD grants covering 127 projects across 50 states, Washington, D.C., American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
As algorithmic pricing lawsuits continue to play out around the country, more apartment owners and managers have settled. (Julie Strupp, Multifamily Dive)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem

September 08, 2026 — Owen Newman - Construction Executive
This is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects. An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist. Reprinted courtesy of Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Newman may be contacted at oknewman@duanemorris.com

Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment

June 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on the insured’s bad faith claim, but granted the motion on the insured’s claim for punitive damages. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58234 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2026). On February 1, 2023, the Church filed a claim for water damage with Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC). The claim was based on rain and wind that caused extensive water intrusion into the Sanctuary, damaging its plaster walls and ceilings and fresco paintings. The claim was assigned to Patrick Hurley. Hurley sent a letter discussing potential bars to coverage and requesting further information and documents from the Church. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Claim for Roof Damage Caused by Windstorm

May 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, eliminating the insured’s claim for roof damage due to windstorm. Mulas v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537 (Jan. 30, 2026). The insureds’ commercial property sustained windstorm damage during Hurricane Ian. Westchester denied the claim. The insureds believed Westchester wrongfully denied coverage for roof damage and various interior damage to property. The insureds also argued that Westchester’s actual cash value (ACV) payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. The insureds sued and Westchester moved for summary judgment. Westchester argued the roof damage was not covered because Hurricane Ian did not cause the damage. Westchester hired an engineer who determined the roof damage was not caused by wind from Hurricane Ian. Westchester pointed out that the insureds’ expert also found no wind damage on the roof. The insureds offered no other evidence suggesting the hurricane caused roof damage. Therefore, the insureds could not show that Westchester breached the policy by denying coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES