ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle

July 13, 2026 — Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis Brisbois
The Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways Act 932:

• Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
• Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
• Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.

Reprinted courtesy of Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

---

Risk Reset: Concerns Top of Mind for Top Construction Law Firms

September 28, 2026 — David McMillin - Construction Executive
In the summer of 2025, contractors were consumed by one major issue: tariffs. Owners, builders and suppliers were trying to understand how shifting trade policy would affect bid pricing and ongoing projects. While those concerns have eased after a Supreme Court ruling, some of the industry’s top legal experts—all of whom practice at some of CE’s Top 50 Construction Law Firms—point to a different set of worries that are keeping their clients up at night and keeping their offices busy. Inflation is not fading away, creating continued price challenges. Artificial intelligence is moving at a breakneck pace, offering potential time-saving benefits paired with major liability concerns. The federal government continues to make surprising policy changes, and contractors remain focused on managing financial risk across increasingly complex projects. Reprinted courtesy of David McMillin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

The GKN Aerospace Chemical Release and the Laws Designed to Address It

July 06, 2026 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On May 21, 2026, a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, California began leaking methyl methacrylate (MMA), a volatile and highly flammable industrial chemical used to manufacture high-strength acrylic plastics. GKN Aerospace makes advanced military and commercial transparencies, such as aircraft canopies, windshields, cabin windows, bullet-resistant glass, and spacecraft windows. In polymer chemistry lingo, MMA is known as a monomer. Monomers are like individual links to a chain. Under the right conditions they link up (react) with each other to form long-chained polymers, or plastics. MMA is an unstable monomer that requires controlled storage conditions to avoid setting off a polymerization (chain) reaction. According to early reports, the MMA tank at GKN Aerospace overheated. The cause of the overheating is not yet clear, but the overheating may have created conditions enabling the MMA to initiate polymerization, which in turn generated heat, which in turn generated pressure, activating the tank’s pressure-relief system and releasing MMA vapor into the atmosphere. Concerns about a runaway reaction, massive release, and explosion led the Orange County Fire Authority to order evacuation of approximately 40,000 residents and closure of thirteen schools. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

EPA, Maryland Sue DC Water Over Massive Potomac River Sewage Spill

May 14, 2026 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The state of Maryland and the federal government have filed separate lawsuits against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), both alleging that the agency’s failure to address longstanding deterioration in the Potomac Interceptor contributed to a weeklong release of more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River this past January. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---

Two Important Points Regarding the Miller Act

September 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller Act case, U.S. f/u/b/o Boundless Management Outsourcing Group, LLC v. Endurance Assurance Corp, 2026 WL 2241491 (D. Puerto Rico 2026), confirms two important points when it comes to the Miller Act. In this case, a subcontractor pursued a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit more than one year after its work was finished. The subcontractor also asserted a claim against the federal government. The lawsuit was dismissed. Below are two takeaway points to consider if you are dealing with a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. First, as it relates the claim against the federal government, the federal district court followed authority that held that the Miller Act does NOT include a waiver of sovereign immunity against the federal government. “[T]he Court does not identify any clear language in the Miller Act expressly waiving the United States or its agencies’ sovereign immunity.” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *3. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

July 13, 2026 — Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction Seyt
Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---

Owner Taking Assignment of General Contractor’s Claims Against a Subcontractor(s)

September 21, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects. The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims. This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out. The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---