Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Arguing the Fees Are Inextricably Intertwined

December 02, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Attorney’s fees are a big part of any dispute. And the attorney’s fees should be because fees are a factor and can ultimately drive the outcome of a dispute. No one wants to spend $100,000 in fees to recover $100,000, so the conversation regarding attorney’s fees needs to be had early. Generally, a party can recover reasonable attorney’s fees if authorized by contract or by statute. So, there would need to be a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision in a contract, if suing on a contract, or there would need to be a statute authorizing the recovery of attorney’s fees, if suing on a statute. Then, there is authority that the party still needs to prevail on the significant issues in the dispute, as determined by the trial court (or binding arbitrator), in order to be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. (Absent that, you are dealing with a proposal for settlement to create a procedural basis to recover fees, which is explained here.) Reasonable attorney’s fees, however, does not mean you will recover 100% of your attorney’s fees. Some percentage will presumably be discounted meaning becoming 100% whole when factoring in attorney’s fees is not always a practical outlook. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Alert: Fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment Defense Applies to Payment Bond Claims

April 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under Florida’s Lien Law, there’s an affirmative defense or affirmative claim known as a “fraudulent lien.” The fraudulent lien defense or claim is set out in Florida Statute s. 713.31. This defense also extends to payment bond claims, whether under a private statutory payment bond (Florida Statute s. 713.23) or a public payment bond (Florida Statute s. 255.05), as it pertains to the notice of nonpayment. A notice of nonpayment needs to be served within 90 days from final furnishing to preserve a claimant’s rights against the bond. However, there really has not been a case, until now, that discusses a “fraudulent notice of nonpayment.” In K&M Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brown Electrical Solutions, LLC, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D672a (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), a prime contractor and surety prevailed at the trial level on their fraudulent notice of nonpayment defense based on a supplier’s notice of nonpayment and action against a public payment bond (under Florida Statute s. 255.05). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

American Roads Are Paved With Inefficiency

November 09, 2025 — David Zipper - Bloomberg
North Carolina and South Carolina are neighboring southeastern states, but despite their similar climate and terrain, their costs of highway projects are vastly different. For repaving work begun in 2018 or 2019, South Carolina’s Department of Transportation spent an average of $375,500 per mile, more than twice as much as its northern neighbor. That discrepancy is one of many intriguing findings about state DOTs uncovered by Zachary Liscow, a professor at Yale Law School who is trained as an economist as well as a lawyer. For more than a decade, Liscow has examined how state DOTs pay for infrastructure, and he’s reached a series of striking conclusions about why their costs have risen over time, albeit at very different rates. He also offers suggestions about ways transportation agencies can get more bang for taxpayers’ dollars. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Zipper, Bloomberg

Snell & Wilmer Named Among the “Most Admired Law Firms to Work For” by Los Angeles Business Journal

December 22, 2025 — Snell & Wilmer
LOS ANGELES – Snell & Wilmer is proud to announce that its Los Angeles office has again been named to the Los Angeles Business Journal’s 2025 “Most Admired Law Firms to Work For.” The list highlights outstanding law firms in the L.A. area that are consciously working towards creating diverse, positive, and supportive environments to help drive the success of their attorneys. Firms appearing on the list were judged on company culture, employee benefit and support programs, as well as diversity and women’s initiatives. “We are honored to be recognized once more as one of the ‘Most Admired Law Firms to Work For’ by the Los Angeles Business Journal”, said Joshua Schneiderman, managing partner of the firm’s Los Angeles office. “Our focus remains on building a workplace where people feel supported, encouraged to grow, and connected to their colleagues, clients, and communities. We are committed to investing in programs, relationships, and opportunities that create long lasting career fulfillment.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

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

Court Compels Appraisal Although Coverage Issues Exist

February 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California federal district court granted the insured’s motion to compel appraisal despite the existence of outstanding coverage issues. K4 Dev. LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211337 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6. 2025). The insured owned hotel property. It was insured by ACE while the hotel was under construction. During construction, the hotel suffered rainwater damage due to incomplete roofing systems. The water damaged the interior finishes and furnishings from the 6th floor down to the basement, including 32 guestrooms. The insured’s experts determined that the covered water losses delayed the hotel’s opening by 144 days. The insured submitted a claim for the water damage, covered claim expenses, and delay in opening losses. ACE denied the claim for delay in opening losses, stating that its expert determined the Water Events did not delay the hotel’s opening. ACE, however, did pay for the repair damage caused by the Water Events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires

March 24, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined. In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context. 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