Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Oracle's $16B Michigan Data Center Secures Financing as Power Contracts Face Appeals

June 08, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A $16 billion hyperscale data center under construction outside Ann Arbor, Mich., has secured financing backed by Blackstone and other institutional investors, even as the project's power supply agreements now face a legal challenge before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

SB 342 Eliminates the “All-or-Nothing” Rule Under Dreaded Business and Professions Code Section 7031

November 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Most California contractors are aware of dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031 which has been described even by courts – who typically veer away from ascribing judgment to legislation – as being “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and “unjust.” For those less familiar with Section 7031, the statute provides two remedies, described as a shield and a sword, against unlicensed contractors who perform work requiring a license. The first, the “shield” also referred to as the “claim preclusion” provision, precludes unlicensed contractors from suing for payment when performing work requiring a license. The second, the “sword” also referred to as the “disgorgement” provision, allows a property owner to sue an unlicensed contractor for disgorgement of all money paid to the unlicensed contractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Don’t Forget to Include Termination Language in Your Contract

November 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case explains why termination language or a basis to withhold contract sums is important in your contract. Don’t neglect this language or the negotiation that goes into having this language. In a recent dispute, GSD Contracting, LLC v. All American Builders & Debris Removal, Inc., 2026 WL 3068422 (Fla. 4th CA 2026), a subcontract included language that said that 10% retainage would be paid 90 days after final completion of the project. The subcontract did NOT include termination for cause language; it only included termination for convenience language. Towards the end of the project, mold was discovered warranting mold remediation. The subcontractor refused to perform until the mold was remediated. The general contractor claimed it was remediated but the subcontractor argued the remediation was insufficient because the contractor did not engage an industrial hygienist. After the subcontractor refused to complete its work, the general contractor terminated the subcontractor for cause. The subcontractor then sued the general contractor for its 10% retainage claiming the general contractor breached the subcontract. The trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, agreed. The appellate court found that the contract required the general contractor to pay the subcontractor’s retainage 90 days after final completion and the project had long been completed. “Significantly, the subcontract does not contain a termination for cause provision or any pertinent provision permitting [the general contractor] to withhold or retain [the subcontractor’s] retainage following a termination…Nothing in the subcontract provides that [the general contractor] may thereafter withhold the retainage based on an alleged default by [the subcontractor].” GSD Contracting, supra, at *2. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Your Construction Contract Won’t Always Save You From a Bad Project Record

November 02, 2026 — Matthew J. Devries - Best Practices Construction Law Blog
Construction contracts are full of protections. No-damage-for-delay clauses. Consequential damage waivers. Rights to supplement a subcontractor’s work. Broad scheduling provisions. But a recent Tennessee construction case provides an important reminder: the best contract in the world may not save you from bad project facts. In Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC (TN Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2026), the dispute involved a general contractor and its drywall subcontractor on a multi-building retirement community. The subcontract was originally worth more than $3.2 million, and the parties eventually disagreed about delays, scheduling, supplemental work, backcharges, and unpaid applications for payment. What began as a fairly typical construction dispute became anything but typical. A jury ultimately found that the general contractor had intentionally misrepresented material facts and awarded the subcontractor $3.9 million in punitive damages. (The case has a lengthy procedural history involving multiple appeals, but this post focuses only on the practical lessons from the most recent decision.) Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew J. Devries, Buchalter
Mr. Devries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

Traub Lieberman Recognized in the 2026 Edition of Chambers USA

June 29, 2026 — Traub Lieberman
In the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, Traub Lieberman has been awarded rankings in the following categories: Illinois – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer In the Chambers research, clients noted: "The team are technically very strong, responsive, and on top of their cases." Florida – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer In the Chambers research, clients noted: "Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry distinguishes itself through a combination of deep subject-matter expertise, responsiveness, and practical risk-management orientation." Commenters went on to say: “The team has deep knowledge of Florida property insurance statutes, regulations and case law, enabling effective handling of disputes, appeals and third-party litigation." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Alexander Hopkins Authors Law360 Article on Wisconsin Supreme Court Coverage Decision

October 06, 2026 — Alexander G. Hopkins - SDV Fenchurch
Alexander Hopkins recently authored an Expert Analysis for Law360 examining a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision addressing coverage for water damage arising from alleged construction defects. In “Wis. Coverage Ruling Rejects Strict Ensuing Loss Test,” Alex explores the relationship between construction defect exclusions and ensuing loss provisions, and what the decision means for policyholders seeking coverage when an excluded condition contributes to subsequent damage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexander G. Hopkins, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at alexander.hopkins@sdvfenchurch.us

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

May 14, 2026 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES