ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

June 29, 2026 — Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & Wilmer
A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) OVERVIEW The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law). KEY HOLDINGS 1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session. Reprinted courtesy of Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

High-Rise Design and Construction: Then, Now, and Next

March 16, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The Empire State Building was built in 14 months. Since 2010, the average completion time for a 200-meter-plus building has increased from 4.3 to 5.8 years. Buildings have become more complex, and there's more regulation than in the 1930s. Still, there are ways to make high-rise construction more efficient. An Unlikely Benchmark From 1930 When construction began on the Empire State Building on March 17, 1930, the world was in the midst of the Great Depression. That turned out to be an advantage. Contractors Starrett Brothers & Eken had access to a vast, motivated workforce, peaking at 3,439 workers on a single day in August 1930. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Science-Based Standards for Wildfire Recovery: What California Policyholders Need to Know About A.B. 1642

March 03, 2026 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Wildfires continue to present serious risks for California property owners. Unfortunately, commercial property owners, corporate facilities, landlords, and homeowners need to overcome not only the flames themselves, but also remediating hazardous contamination against a backdrop of unpredictable and ambiguous environmental safety standards. In response to the destructive Los Angeles area fires in 2025, the California Legislature recently introduced Assembly Bill 1642 aimed at creating uniform science-based standards for evaluating, testing, and clearing wildfire-impacted properties. While A.B. 1642 is in its early stages of consideration, it could materially influence claims handling, remediation costs, risk management practices, and broader liability exposures for California policyholders. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Soot Constitutes Property Damage

March 17, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

---

Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!

April 14, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

One Industry, One Goal: Construction Safety Week 2026

May 05, 2026 — Maggie Murphy - Construction Executive
Construction safety has long been a top priority across the industry. Yet fatality rates have remained stubbornly flat for more than a decade. Steven Carter, global health and safety director at Gilbane chair company for Construction Safety Week 2026—believes the industry has reached a pivotal moment. This year’s theme—”All In Together: Recognize. Respond. Respect.”—is a unified call to action for owners, designers, contractors and craft professionals around a shared, risk-based approach to preventing serious injuries and fatalities. In a recent interview with Construction Executive, Carter discusses why the industry must move beyond incremental improvements, how technology and AI can support better planning and what it will take to create a true culture of psychological safety on jobsites. Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---