ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues

August 03, 2026 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction. Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Structural Engineer Claims Reinforcement Was Never Installed on Troubled NYC Tower

September 01, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
New York City has expanded its investigation into the structural failure at the former Pfizer headquarters tower in Midtown Manhattan as the Dept. of Investigation confirmed a parallel inquiry and the Dept. of Buildings directed the property owner to retain third-party engineering oversight. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

New Florida Law Adds Licensing Risk to Contractor/Subcontractor Payment Disputes

September 29, 2026 — Brett J. Moritz & Ali Heyat - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Effective July 1, 2026, Florida’s newly enacted Section 489.1295 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Prohibition Against Nonpayment,” requires licensed contractors to timely compensate subcontractors and suppliers for labor, services, or materials. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 290 (Ch. 2026-3, Laws of Fla.), the statute adds a new basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against a contractor’s license if a payment is knowingly or willfully withheld. While this is not a sweeping overhaul of Florida construction payment laws by any means, contractors should be aware that nonpayment disputes with subcontractors and suppliers may carry potential licensing consequences. Reprinted courtesy of Brett J. Moritz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Ali Heyat, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moritz may be contacted at bmoritz@pecklaw.com Mr. Heyat may be contacted at aheyat@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Denis Serkin and Michael S. Zicherman Co-Edit/Author Lexology Panoramic: Construction 2027

August 03, 2026 — Denis Serkin & Michael S. Zicherman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
P&A partners Denis Serkin and Michael S. Zicherman served as co-editors and authors of Lexology’s Panoramic: Construction 2027 – US and Global guide. Formerly Getting the Deal Through, Lexology Panoramic provides members of the construction industry and construction-related legal and business providers with side-by-side comparison of key industry issues in 19 jurisdictions worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Denis Serkin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Serkin may be contacted at dserkin@pecklaw.com Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Colorado’s New Mechanic’s Lien Law: Bigger Claims, Stronger Protections, and New Risks for Owners and Contractors

October 12, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
On April 6, 2026, the same day that the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, Governor Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 26-074 into law. The legislation, which took effect on August 12, 2026, clarifies the amounts that may be included in mechanic’s liens and public construction payment claims, as well as the circumstances under which those claims may be considered excessive. While the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision and the Governor’s approval of SB 26-074 is noteworthy, the legislation has implications extending beyond the public works claims addressed in Wadsworth. Most significantly, it expressly addresses disputed and unliquidated amounts, including delay and disruption costs, in mechanic’s liens filed against private construction projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Function Over Form: Eighth Circuit Narrows Application of Cosmetic Damage Exclusion

October 12, 2026 — Ali Jamwal - SDV Fenchurch
Introduction In a significant decision for policyholders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of an exclusion for cosmetic roof damage caused by wind or hail.[1] The court held that for a cosmetic damage exclusion to apply, an insurer must prove that the roof’s ability to function as a barrier to the elements is not impaired as compared to its functionality prior to the loss or damage. Background In April 2022, a hailstorm struck the insured school buildings causing indentations in the buildings’ metal roofs. The hail did not puncture the roofs’ metal, and no leaks were reported. The insurer denied the claim based on the policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion, which precluded coverage for “cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind and/or hail.” Cosmetic damage was defined as “superficial damage that altered the appearance of the roof surfacing, but such damage does not prevent the roof from continuing to function as a barrier to entrance of the elements to the same extent as it did before.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ali Jamwal, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Jamwal may be contacted at ali.jamwal@sdvfenchurch.us

---

In-House Insight at CSC

October 26, 2026 — Elaine Y. Lee - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Elaine Y. Lee, Partner in P&A’s Los Angeles office, sat down with Third Thursday to discuss effective collaboration with in-house counsel, strategies for resolving construction disputes, and the factors that can help determine the best path forward. This discussion previews her upcoming Construction Super Conference panel, “Same But Different: How In-House Legal Teams Vary in Approach, Role, and Decision-Making,” on December 2nd. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Y. Lee, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Lee may be contacted at elee@pecklaw.com

---

Unable To Afford an Appellate Bond? You May Be “Indigent” And Qualify for a Discretionary Waiver or Reduction of the Bond Amount.

October 26, 2026 — Suzanne M. Nicholson - Wilke Fleury
One of the most frequent questions asked when a client is considering taking an appeal from an adverse judgment or order is whether that judgment or order is stayed pending appeal. The answer, not surprisingly, is “it depends.” While the general rule is that perfecting an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court, including enforcement of the judgment or order, there are many, many, exceptions to that rule. One such exception is a judgment or order for “money or the payment of money.” (CCP § 917.1) In such cases, a bond or undertaking is typically required to stay enforcement. The costs of such security can be significant. If you are using an admitted surety insurer, the amount of security required is 1 1/2 times the amount of the judgment. Obtaining a bond through an admitted surety will require that you have sufficient collateral to secure the bond, and sufficient funds to pay the associated premiums, which generally run between 1% and 3% of the total bond amount, per year. So, if you are appealing from a $1 million judgment, you will likely need $1.5 million in assets as collateral, and up to $30,000 per year for the premium. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Suzanne M. Nicholson, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Nicholson may be contacted at snicholson@wilkefleury.com

---