ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

May 26, 2026 — Gray Development Group
PHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction. The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale. The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market. According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona. Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing. ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997. About Gray Development Group Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.

---

Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

June 23, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Construction Robotics Works Where Variation Ends

August 11, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
BuiltWorlds published its 2026 Robotics Top 50 this summer, and the list is genuinely wide. Fifty solutions across nine categories, from 3D printing and prefabricated component manufacturing to earthmoving, demolition, material transport, layout, installation, inspection, and drilling. The honorees come from sixteen countries. It looks like robotics has finally spread across the whole project lifecycle. However, having vendors in nine categories does not mean that contractors are robotizing their work en masse. Zacua Ventures, in its 2026 construction robotics report, estimates that on-site robotics accounted for less than 0.03% of global construction spending in 2025. Zacua says: “That is not a failed market. It is a market at the beginning of an adoption S-curve”, while warning that its estimates rest on private vendor data and may be high if vendors overstate how widely their machines are deployed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Scope of Products Requiring Proposition 65 Warnings in California Poised to Grow

February 23, 2026 — Brian M. Ledger & Chassen B. Palmer - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The scope of products to be drawn into the warning requirements under California’s Proposition 65 law may soon be growing. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requested information from the public on the reproductive toxicity of p,p’-bisphenol chemicals. OEHHA is the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition 65, formerly known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxicity Enforcement Act of 1986. OEHHA’s request for information is a step toward regulators classifying all p,p’-bisphenol chemicals as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65. California’s Proposition 65 Under Proposition 65, businesses are required to post clear and reasonable warnings before individuals are exposed to chemicals listed by the state of California as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. To date, California has listed approximately 900 chemicals that fall under Proposition 65 regulation. Businesses may be held liable for up to $2,500 per violation per day. Proposition 65 can be enforced by public prosecutors (e.g., the California attorney general or district attorneys) or by private enforcers (known as “bounty hunters”). Reprinted courtesy of Brian M. Ledger, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Chassen B. Palmer, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Ledger may be contacted at bledger@grsm.com Mr. Palmer may be contacted at cbpalmer@grsm.com Read the full story...

---

The AVOID Act: A New Timeline for Liability in New York Construction Projects

February 23, 2026 — Meghan Douris - The Construction Seyt
By April 18, 2026, New York construction litigation will operate on a faster—and far less forgiving—timeline. The Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (the “AVOID Act”), signed into law on December 19, 2025, fundamentally rewrites third‑party practice under CPLR § 1007 by imposing strict deadlines to bring subcontractors, suppliers, and other responsible parties into a case. For owners, developers, general contractors, and their in‑house counsel, this change will shift risk assessment, contract enforcement, and litigation strategy to the very front end of a claim—particularly in New York Labor Law and construction defect cases. What Changed—and Why It Matters to Construction Cases Historically, New York defendants could implead subcontractors and other players well into discovery. The AVOID Act ends that practice. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

---

Fraud Allegations Stymie Additional Insured’s Request for a Defense

May 14, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s complaint seeking a defense of the underlying case alleging fraud. Renovation Realty, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21409 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026). Mara Fortin sued Renovation Realty and others (“Fortin litigation”) from the fraudulent sale of a residence. The underlying complaint alleged Renovation “deliberately misrepresented of the residence as ‘completely remodeled’ and ‘meticulously maintained’.” The defendants, however, including Renovation, “knew from sources including a pre-renovation termite report documenting fungus and dry rot . . . that the Property harbored pre-existing material defects.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Supreme Court Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet

March 31, 2026 — Christopher Barnett - Construction Executive
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump did what many expected: It held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. What few anticipated was the speed of what followed: Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposed a 10% global surcharge effective February 24, and signaled forthcoming Section 301 investigations against most major trading partners. For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Barnett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---