ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida's Third DCA Reasserts the Teeth of Chapter 558 and the Future of Construction Defect Litigation

February 23, 2026 — Ryan C. Brooks & Keith G. Salhab - Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
The case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Though procedurally narrow, the ruling reflects an increasingly assertive appellate stance. Chapter 558's pre-suit notice and right-to-repair process is mandatory, jurisdictional in effect, and not subject to dilution by trial-level discretion. At its core, the opinion reinforces a foundational principle. Florida intends for construction defect disputes to be managed, investigated, and often resolved before they reach a courtroom. The Third DCA's insistence on strict statutory compliance signals to trial courts, and to the plaintiffs' bar, that procedural shortcuts will not be tolerated. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan C. Brooks, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP and Keith G. Salhab, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Mr. Brooks may be contacted at rbrooks@wshblaw.com Mr. Salhab may be contacted at ksalhab@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

---

Additional Insured’s Claim for a Defense Is Dismissed

December 22, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court dismissed the additional insured’s complaint seeking a defense against a personal injury case. Piece Mgmt., Inc. v. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205589 (S.D. N. Y. Oct. 18, 2025). The underlying plaintiff, Mustafaa Dais alleged that he was injured when a glass door collapsed onto him as he exited BJ’s Restaurant. Dais sued BJ’s seeking damages for his injuries. He later amended his complaint to add Piece Management, Inc. the property’s management company, and Narway, Inc., the company hired to install the glass door. Under the subcontract between Piece and Narwy, Narway was required to maintain a general liability policy and to add Piece as an additional insured. Narway obtained the required policy from Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

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

---

GRSM New York Founding Partner Mercedes Colwin Honored with 2025 Excellence in Diversity Award by PLUS Foundation

November 09, 2025 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The Excellence in Diversity Award is presented annually to a member of the insurance industry who has demonstrated exceptional leadership and commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the profession. Honorees are recognized for creating meaningful change through mentoring, advocacy, thought leadership, and the development of inclusive policies and initiatives that broaden opportunities for underrepresented groups. Colwin was selected for her longstanding dedication to fostering inclusive workplace cultures, her active mentorship of diverse attorneys and professionals, and her visible role as a thought leader on the national stage. In addition to her leadership within GRSM, she has made a significant impact on the broader insurance and professional liability industries by raising awareness of equity issues, supporting educational initiatives, and championing the next generation of diverse talent. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

---

Texas Court Revives Construction Defect Claims: Key Lessons for Managing Latent Defect Risk

January 21, 2026 — Spencer E. Dunn & Melissa Osio Martinez - Wood Smith Henning Berman
Construction projects often involve intricate designs, multiple stakeholders, and complex performance obligations. When problems surface years after completion, parties must navigate a difficult landscape that blends contract law, tort doctrines, and statutory deadlines. A recent decision from the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas provides meaningful guidance on how courts will evaluate latent construction defect claims, the applicability of the discovery rule, and the limits of the economic loss doctrine. In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., the court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the general contractor and project manager, reviving the owner's claims and offering important lessons for owners, contractors, and insurers facing construction defect disputes. Background of the Dispute Morningside Ministries operates senior living communities across Texas. In 2012, It contracted with Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd. (Koontz) to construct The Overlook, a significant expansion of Morningside's Menger Springs campus in Boerne. The contract required Koontz to build 100 new senior living units along with common areas and site improvements, and placed responsibility for construction quality, including the work of subcontractors, on Koontz. Reprinted courtesy of Spencer E. Dunn, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Melissa Osio Martinez, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Dunn may be contacted at sdunn@wshblaw.com Ms. Martinez may be contacted at mosiomartinez@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

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

---

Court Resolves Disagreement on the Amount of the Deductible

December 02, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a windstorm caused damage to the insured’s building and repair materials, the court sided with the insured in determining the amount of the deductible. Semaho, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193521 (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2025). Semaho owned two commercial buildings insured under a policy issued by AMCO. The buildings were damaged in a windstorm and Semaho’s contractor stored the building materials for the repairs on one building’s roof. A second windstorm then seriously damaged the building materials stored on the roof. Semaho submitted a claim for the lost building materials. Coverage was undisputed but the parties disagreed over which deductible should apply to Semaho’s claim. The key policy provision stated that the deductible should be calculated separately for the “building” and for certain categories of “personal property,” based on “the value(s) of the property that has sustained loss or damage.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---