Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Sausage-Making Often Relies on the Good Sense of the Chef Rather than the Recipe

June 23, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Even for lawyers, the rules governing litigation can get complex and convoluted. Does something need to be filed? What needs to be filed? When is the deadline for filing? Simple questions with not always with straightforward answers. This was the case in R & J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co. of California, 111 Cal.App.5th 878 (2025), which involved sheet metal panels lost when they fell into the Port of Long Beach harbor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.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

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders

August 24, 2026 — Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & Wilmer
After filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1 Background McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer, Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com Read the full story...

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

White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins

May 12, 2026 — Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLP
Three weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins. White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Reprinted courtesy of Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

Engineering Seals Versus Contracts ‘Under Seal’ (Two Very Different Things)

May 05, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently, I was asked by a reader to explain the difference between a document that is ‘sealed’ by an engineer (or architect) and one that is signed ‘under seal’. This question prompted this post, as others may also be wondering about the distinction. [Hi Ed! Thanks for your question] Professionals have ‘seals’ that show that they are registered (Engineers) or licensed (Architects). As most of you likely know, your professional seal is something that is hard won and which is used when—and only when—your plans were made by you or someone under your direct supervisory control. Your signature represents that you were in responsible control over the documents, and that they have met the required professional standard of care. (21 NC Admin Code 2-0206 (a)(11)). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

May 12, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site. This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it. The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/15/26) – The World Cup’s Effect on Commercial Real Estate, Megadeals Lift CRE Sales and Algorithmic Pricing Lawsuits Continue

July 27, 2026 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, DOT earmarks $1.73B in BUILD grants, federal housing bill becomes law, data center surge cools off, and more!

Data center planning cooled off month over month from “extraordinary levels” to start the summer, while other areas of construction finally picked up a little steam. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced $1.73 billion in 2026 BUILD grants covering 127 projects across 50 states, Washington, D.C., American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
As algorithmic pricing lawsuits continue to play out around the country, more apartment owners and managers have settled. (Julie Strupp, Multifamily Dive)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES