ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Builders Risk/Construction All Risks and Delay in Start-Up Coverage for Large Energy Projects: Protecting Revenue Before Operations Begin

September 21, 2026 — Will Bennett - SDV Fenchurch
The Most Significant Loss May Be the Delay, Not the Damage Power and energy projects are uniquely vulnerable to losses during construction. Whether the project involves a utility-scale solar facility, battery storage installation, a wind farm, transmission project, LNG terminal, or conventional generation facility, loss events in this sector often have consequences far more impactful than the actual cost of repairing damaged property. Any number of construction losses can delay commercial operation of the facility by months, triggering lost revenues, financing impacts, contractual penalties, and investor concerns. In many cases, those delay-related losses significantly exceed the underlying repair costs. Construction All Risk (“CAR”) insurance and Delay in Start-Up (“DSU”) coverage are designed to respond to these exposures. However, recovering delay-related losses is far more complicated than many insureds anticipate, particularly when projects involve international stakeholders, global supply chains, and London market insurance placements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Will Bennett, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at will.bennett@sdvfenchurch.us

---

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

---

Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

May 14, 2026 — Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocs
Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...

---

Colorado Court Affirms Attorneys’ Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel for Pursuing Unsupported CCPA Claims

August 03, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s award of more than $241,000 in attorney fees against a plaintiffs’ attorney who continued to pursue unsupported claims arising out of a residential construction dispute. Although the opinion was not selected for official publication under C.A.R. 35(e) and therefore has no precedential value, it nevertheless provides an instructive reminder that Colorado courts are willing to impose significant financial consequences when claims lack substantial justification. For builders, developers, contractors, insurers, and defense counsel, the case is worth reading, not because it announces new law, but because it demonstrates that Colorado’s fee-shifting statute remains a meaningful tool when unsupported claims continue long after they should have been abandoned. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

We Won’t Permit That Excuse!

June 23, 2026 — Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocs
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit? But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation. The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

EPA Expands PFAS Reporting Requirements with Addition of New Chemical to Toxics Release Inventory, Published by Law360

June 08, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) addition of sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) introduces new federal reporting requirements for businesses that manufacture, process, or use the chemical. Because reporting obligations apply retroactively to the start of the year, affected facilities must quickly evaluate their compliance and recordkeeping practices. In a recent Law360 article, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, explains why PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI, how the EPA’s public reporting system works, and which businesses may be affected by the new rule. The article also touches upon key compliance considerations, including supply chain reviews, reporting thresholds for chemicals of special concern, and preparation for public disclosure requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

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

---

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

August 16, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense. But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence. Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---