ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

AI Data Centers Become City-Scale Infrastructure, Prompting New Industry Playbook

August 11, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
AI data centers are no longer just buildings. They are increasingly reaching power-demand levels more commonly associated with municipalities, prompting industry groups to launch a new framework they say is needed to keep pace with rapidly changing power, cooling and reliability requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

GRSM Trial Team Holds Alameda County Asbestos Verdict to $900,000 Against $50 Million Demand

July 27, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners John Katerndahl and Vincent Gunter recently obtained an outstanding trial result for a manufacturer of asbestos-containing electrical cable, holding a jury verdict to $900,000 against a $50 million demand following an eight-week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, which is among the most challenging asbestos venues in the country. The GRSM team also included Associate Brandon Sanchez, on-site trial Paralegal Laura Vitanova, and Paralegal Kerrie Lease. The plaintiffs, the surviving spouse and four children of a former painter who died of mesothelioma, alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the company’s electrical cable during construction of a California nuclear power facility. GRSM’s client was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The plaintiffs asked the jury for $50 million and called 15 witnesses across their case-in-chief and rebuttal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Preventing Common and Costly Water Intrusion Events in Construction

July 13, 2026 — Andrew Swift - Construction Executive
Water leaking into a building is a leading cause of damage and loss in the construction industry. On one jobsite, heavy rains flooded a sub-basement, damaging a new electrical transformer—all because a roof drain was not property connected. On another jobsite, a drinking-fountain supply line broke in a multistory building that was undergoing renovation, causing water to run—undetected—for an entire weekend, resulting in water damage to all lower floors, where construction had been finished. Those loss scenarios could have been prevented with a comprehensive and effective water damage prevention plan (WDPP). This includes routine site inspections to identify uncontrolled water damage exposures and basic maintenance to make sure drains are clean of debris and divert them to a catch basin or low point away from the building. An effective WDPP plan also incorporates technology such as backflow preventers on sewer connections and water sensing technology to monitor the most vulnerable exposures. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Swift, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Insured Does Not Prevail on Summary Judgment Motion Invoking Ensuing Loss Provision

May 05, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of fact regarding implication of the policy’s ensuing loss provision. Stella Prop. Dev.. & Event Productions, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15854 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026). Stella owned a cultural center that was insured under a commercial property all-risk policy issued by Auto-Owners. A windstorm with gusts of 65 miles per hour struck the Center causing damage. The Center’s inspector found extensive wind damage on nearly all facets of the roof. Further, the inspector found the existing organic shingles were in “very poor condition” and were “defective, discontinued, and no longer available.” The estimated cost of repairs to the roof was $108,010.52. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.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

---

Colorado Court Affirms Attorneys’ Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel for Pursuing Unsupported CCPA Claims

August 03, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s award of more than $241,000 in attorney fees against a plaintiffs’ attorney who continued to pursue unsupported claims arising out of a residential construction dispute. Although the opinion was not selected for official publication under C.A.R. 35(e) and therefore has no precedential value, it nevertheless provides an instructive reminder that Colorado courts are willing to impose significant financial consequences when claims lack substantial justification. For builders, developers, contractors, insurers, and defense counsel, the case is worth reading, not because it announces new law, but because it demonstrates that Colorado’s fee-shifting statute remains a meaningful tool when unsupported claims continue long after they should have been abandoned. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Proposal—Fast-Track Capacity to Meet Rising Large-Load Demand

May 12, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight, Jason Drogin Atwood & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel
In January, we discussed the Statement of Principles jointly signed by the National Energy Dominance Council and governors across the mid-Atlantic region—framing accelerating demand (especially from large-scale data centers) as an emergency reliability issue for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the nation’s largest power grid operator. That policy signal is now becoming a near-term, accelerated procurement and contracting exercise. On April 8, 2026, PJM notified stakeholders of a critical issue fast path reliability backstop procurement process. PJM subsequently released a request for information (RFI) with respect to a proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP)—a one-time mechanism intended to attract significant new capacity to address projected reliability shortfalls driven by large-load growth. RBP compresses what is often a multiyear market and regulatory conversation into a fast-moving set of commercial choices. Developers, large loads, utilities and capital providers should be preparing now for (i) an accelerated bilateral contracting window and (ii) a standardized PJM-led backstop procurement if bilateral deals do not clear enough capacity. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury, Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---