Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Five Payne & Fears attorneys have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list in recognition of their work across a range of practice areas. This honor reflects their dedication to their clients, depth of experience, and the high standard of service they bring to every matter. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Congratulations to Reno Partner Karen Baytosh for Securing a Complete Dismissal via a Motion for Summary Judgment

July 13, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce that Reno Partner Karen Baytosh received a significant victory on behalf of the firm’s Developer Client in a high-exposure personal injury matter. Plaintiff, a teenager, was struck by an intoxicated driver while walking her dog at night, sustaining catastrophic injuries requiring 24-hour critical care for the remainder of her life. Plaintiff’s Guardian brought suit against the drunk driver and her husband, the City, and BWB&O’s Developer Clients, alleging that the City and Developers failed to improve street lighting and install a sidewalk that would have prevented the accident. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

California’s Retention Reform on Private Construction Projects

February 17, 2026 — Michael McKeeman - The Construction Seyt
Retention has long been a contentious issue in California construction. Traditionally, owners withheld retention of 10% from each progress payment until completion, arguing it was necessary to ensure performance, quality and timely delivery. Contractors and subcontractors, however, often struggled with cash flow, payroll, and material costs while waiting months—sometimes even years—for withheld retention. Recognizing the financial challenges contractors and subcontractors face, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 61 (“SB 61”), now codified under California Civil Code Section 8811 and effective January 1, 2026, limiting retention to 5% on private works of improvement, aligning with the public works standard in place since 2012. The law’s intent is clear—ease financial strain on contractors and subcontractors while still providing owners with security (albeit reduced) with respect to project completion. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael McKeeman, Seyfarth
Mr. McKeeman may be contacted at

Quick Note: Include Key Time Related Facts in Contract to Avoid an Ambiguity

February 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When drafting or negotiating a contract, it is important to consider key time-related facts. In other words, if there are important provisions dealing with time, you don’t want to leave them undefined as that can create an ambiguity in the contract. In a recent case dealing with an investment contract, discussed here, that’s exactly what happened. The contract allowed investors to exercise an option to return their equity in exchange for a refund of their investment but the contract didn’t contain an expiration date on when the option must be exercised. The investors tried to exercise the option two years later leading to a dispute as to whether that was a “reasonable time.” This is because the lack of clarity regarding this temporal fact led to a latent ambiguity meaning it was a question of fact as to whether the investors exercising the option two years later was reasonable under the circumstances. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

New Year’s Resolution: Engineering the “Tee-Up Day” for Complex Construction Mediations

February 17, 2026 — Joël Bertet - The Dispute Resolver
The construction industry is defined by its commitment to "Critical Path" scheduling. From the moment a project breaks ground, every stakeholder—from the MEP sub to the owner’s rep—is focused on sequencing. We know that you cannot hang drywall before the rough-in is inspected, and you cannot pour a slab-on-grade until the vapor barrier is verified. Yet, when these projects devolve into litigation, the legal community often abandons the logic of sequencing. We rush headlong into "The Mediation Day"—a high-stakes, expensive, one-day marathon where we expect dozens of parties, hundreds of insurance layers, and thousands of pages of expert reports to magically align into a settlement by 6:00 PM. As we open our calendars for the new year, it is time for a professional resolution. We must stop treating mediation as a single-day event and start treating it as a managed, sequenced process. The centerpiece of this resolution is the “Tee-Up Day.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joël Bertet, ResolveBertet
Mr. Bertet may be contacted at joel@resolvebertet.com

California Enacts Change Order Fair Payment Act

March 24, 2026 — Michael J. Baker - Snell & Wilmer
For private works construction contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026, recent legislation establishes a claims and dispute resolution process for change orders. The law is codified at Civil Code § 8850. A synopsis of the pertinent provisions includes the following:

Submitting a Claim. Contractors or subcontractors must submit a detailed, documented claim when requesting additional time or payment.
Owner’s Response Time. The owner must meet and confer within thirty (30) days after receiving the claim. Within ten (10) days of meeting, the owner must provide a written statement identifying which portions of the claim are undisputed and which are disputed. An owner’s failure to respond is treated as disputing the entire claim.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Baker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Baker may be contacted at mjbaker@swlaw.com

Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

July 06, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Don’t Ignore Prejudgment Interest

February 02, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to contracts, there may be a clause that provides that untimely payments shall bear interest at a particular rate. Or it may be the statutory rate. That clause will come into play when determining prejudgment interest. In ANY dispute, prejudgment interest can be an important damages component that accrues from the date of the loss. Don’t ignore prejudgment interest. The Fourth District of Florida, in a construction dispute, maintained:

“[I]f a plaintiff establishes that he sustained out-of-pocket loss, prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date of the loss. The trial court has no discretion regarding awarding prejudgment interest and must do so applying the statutory rate of interest in effect at the time the interest accrues.”

Bensusan v. Design Engineering Group, LLC, 2025 WL 3466367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES