ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms: Prevailing Parties Can Recover “Fees on Fees” — Reinforcing Why Builders Should Strike Attorneys’ Fee Clauses From Their Contracts

December 30, 2025 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Colorado developers, builders, and contractors should take notice of a recently published Colorado Court of Appeals decision that increases the financial exposure created by prevailing party attorneys’ fee clauses. In 1046 Munras Properties, L.P. v. Kabod Coffee, 2025 COA 71, the Court held, for the first time in a published Colorado case, that a prevailing party may recover not only contractual attorneys’ fees, but also the attorney fees incurred to obtain those fees. In short: “fees on fees” are now recoverable when a contract contains a broad fee shifting clause. This development underscores the same warning sounded years ago in a prior HHMR blog post titled, Attorney Fee Clauses Are Engraved Invitations to Sue. If prevailing party fee provisions already encouraged litigation, the Munras decision supercharges that incentive. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Reckless Disregard is. . . Well. . .Reckless

December 30, 2025 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Punitive damages are hard to come by in construction law cases. This is because almost all construction contract cases are exactly that: contract cases. Between the economic loss rule and the Virginia Courts’ almost (though not completely) impregnable wall between tort and contract, punitive damages may seem completely out of the picture. Depending on your perspective and position on the construction project food chain, this fact can be either frustrating or comforting. However, like all seemingly immutable laws, this one has an exception according to the Chesapeake County, Virginia Circuit Court. In Sawyer v. C.L. Pincus Jr. & Co. et. al. this Virginia court was faced with the following scenario. The defendants, a church and its contractor, were sued by Sawyer over a construction swale that was built partly on Sawyer’s property. According to the plaintiff, the only permission they gave to their neighbors at the church was to allow the church to build a drainage berm that did not encroach on their property. As stated above, the church and its contractor built a swale that encroached on the Sawyers’ property. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

New Survey Reveals Overwhelmingly Optimistic Results on the Use of AI in Construction

May 14, 2026 — Construction Executive
On December 5, 2025, CMiC and Dodge released a survey asking over 6,000 companies across various sectors of the construction industry their stance on artificial intelligence—whether they use it or not; whether they like it or not; whether they have or are planning to implement it or not; and so on. Considering its reputation for skepticism and reluctance when it comes to adopting new forms of technology, the construction industry pleasantly surprised CMiC and Dodge with its answers to these questions, with 87% of contractors believing AI will have a meaningful impact on construction. “The research indicates the construction industry is nearing a tipping point for AI adoption,” says Steve Jones, senior director of industry insights at Dodge Construction Network, who sat down with Construction Executive to delve further into the survey questions and answers and what the industry’s current position on them means for AI’s future role in construction. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

AIA Waivers Under Fire: Why Post-Completion Losses May Still Be Actionable

January 26, 2026 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
On its face, the power of a waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract is profound. It bars otherwise actionable – and sometimes egregious – losses resulting from contractor carelessness before they can ever get started. One question courts have long battled with is the limits to the lasting effects of such a waiver. Whether the waiver power can be transferred amongst parties, applied to third parties or used with policies taken out after construction completion are among the few grey areas that have kept subrogation practitioners and the courts busy. Recently, a federal court in Idaho clarified its position on the power to waive subrogation. In Seneca Ins. Co. v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00340-BLW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251777 (D. Idaho), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) addressed whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract, signed between an owner and the general contractor, applied to the subsequent owner of a building. In doing so, the court looked at the limiting language of the waiver as well as the contractual posture of the subsequent owner. Ultimately, the court found the waiver inapplicable, denying the motion for summary judgment of Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff McAlvain Construction, Inc. (McAlvain). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Texas Granted Primacy Over Class VI Carbon Storage Wells

December 15, 2025 — Ashleigh Myers, Robert A. James, Michael S. McDonough & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel
On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Texas’s request for primacy over Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, authorizing the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) to issue and oversee permits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) injection projects. The final rule makes Texas the sixth state to secure primacy over Class VI wells—following North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, Arizona and West Virginia—and marks EPA’s third such approval in the last several months. By securing primacy, effective December 15, 2025, Texas gains direct regulatory control over the siting, construction, operation and closure of CO₂ injection wells intended for long-term geological sequestration. This authority enables the state to establish permitting criteria, environmental review procedures and monitoring standards tailored to Texas’s unique geologic formations and existing oil and gas infrastructure. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

In the Eye of the Beholder: Court of Appeal Finds Duty of Care Owed by Owner and Contractors for Death of Minors Caused by Independent Truck Driver

May 05, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I was a T.A. for my high school history teacher, a really smart and nice guy, Mr. Reynolds. In the room at the back of the classroom which served as his office he had the picture above. It’s called “My Wife and My Mother-in-Law” and is taken from a German postcard from 1888. Depending on how you look it, you might see fashionable young lady, or an old lady. Cases can sometimes be like that: You see what you want to see. The next case is also like that. In Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 49 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of an owner and its contractors in a case involving the death of two minors struck by a dump truck enroute to a non-permitted off-site staging area. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

2026 Construction Law Update

January 26, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Happy New Year! Hope the holidays were enjoyable for you. During the first session of the California Legislature’s 2025-2026 legislative session, 2,350 bills were introduced, of which 917 bills made it to the Governor’s desk, and of which 794 bills were signed into law. For the design and construction industry the most important bills are a new claims resolution procedure for private works projects, a 5% retention cap on certain private works projects, and a number of changes to home improvement contract requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void

February 10, 2026 — Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The 2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue. On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---