ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Arbitration Provision Must Be Incorporated into a Bond for Surety to Elect Arbitration

March 03, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
“Sureties cannot exercise unilateral election rights that are reserved for the principal of the underlying contract.” Anderson Service Corp. v. Old Republic Surety Company, 2026 WL 61436, *2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). This was the holding in a recent case dealing with arbitration. In this case, a subcontractor entered into a contract with a contractor that gave the contractor the right to elect arbitration in Pennsylvania. A dispute arose and the subcontractor recorded a construction lien. The contractor transferred the lien to a lien transfer bond under Florida law. (The contractor was the principal of the lien transfer bond.) The lien transfer bond surety then moved to compel the subcontractor to arbitration based on the underlying subcontract. The trial court agreed to compel arbitration but this was reversed on appeal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

June 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Most, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees. But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Quick Note: Don’t Spoil Evidence!!!!

March 10, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The phrase “spoliation of evidence” is a phrase that gets used, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. The reason is that if evidence is legitimately spoiled, the opposing party wants an adverse inference jury instruction. There are two potential adverse inference jury instructions dealing with spoliation of evidence, neither of which are good, and one of which you definitely don’t want. A recent case discusses these jury instructions (check here) in a slip and fall personal injury case. The bottom line is that you need to preserve evidence relevant to a claim. Don’t lose it. Don’t intentionally destroy it. Don’t pretend it does not exist. Don’t do all the things that hinder the preservation and ultimate production of the relevant evidence. An adverse inference jury instruction (or an adverse inference implication in a non-jury trial) could be much, much worse. The facts are what the facts are. The best thing you can do is confront the facts. Confront the bad facts just like the good facts. The nature of any dispute is that there will be both good and bad facts. Bad facts can hopefully be explained recognizing there will be bad facts on the other side too. Sometimes, the bad facts warrant major strategic considerations and shifting the focus of how a dispute will be handled and presented. Whatever you do, don’t put yourself in a position where you are spoiling evidence. Once you get an adverse inference instruction, that’s it, as it’s very tough to overcome. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?

June 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages. As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Connecticut Expands Construction Wage-Theft Liability and Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping Requirements

June 29, 2026 — Anand Gupta & Guest Contributor - Construction Law Zone
This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer Christopher Costain, Hayden Eckblom (Summer Intern), and Pasqualina Fox-Mina (Summer Associate). Hayden and Pasqualina are not admitted to practice law. On May 11, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 26-12, a wide-ranging bill centered around employee rights. Our colleagues in Robinson+Cole’s Labor, Employment, Benefits + Immigration group recently published a legal update summarizing the key components of Public Act 26-12. Here, we focus on the Wage Theft and Prevailing Wage concepts in the bill that directly relate to the construction industry. Wage Theft With exceptions for public works and small residential projects, general contractors will be jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages owed to an employee of a subcontractor of any tier on private construction projects, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027. As we know, there is a separate regime for public works projects involving payment bonds. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anand Gupta, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

June 29, 2026 — Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & Wilmer
A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) OVERVIEW The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law). KEY HOLDINGS 1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session. Reprinted courtesy of Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute

May 14, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute. The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim. GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Virginia Multi-Employer Site Safety Issues–and How to Deal with Them

February 02, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The world of the Owner, Contractor, Subcontractor “straight line” project model is long gone. Increasingly complex construction needs for commercial owners require the services of numerous trades, and even multiple “prime” contractors at times, to perform the various stages of construction. Because of the complex and multi-employer nature of the modern commercial worksite, as a contractor, you may no longer be responsible only for the safety of your own employees. Depending on the state in which your project is being built, you, as a general contractor, may be responsible for hazards at your worksite that you did not create. On federal job sites (or in states that have merely adopted the federal OSHA standard), one rule applies. In some states that have their own safety regulations, another rule applies. Under the Federal OSHA guidelines, the state regulations must be at least as stringent as those of the Federal safety regulations. This flexibility allows states to impose stricter (though not more lenient) rules upon construction site contractors. While this flexibility allows state safety officials to better tailor their policies, it has caused confusion in the multi-employer realm. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---