Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season

April 08, 2026 — Meghan Douris - The Construction Seyt
Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency. What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong. On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI

June 08, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit. While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI. Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine

April 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows: Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Top Developments 2025 - Issue 4

December 22, 2025 — John S. Anooshian, Paul A. Briganti, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, Alexandra M. George & Haley S. Newman - The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
“ARISING OUT OF” Rowe v. State Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 Me. LEXIS 89 (Me., Sept. 23, 2025) Maine Supreme Court, in the premises liability context, holds that an exclusion in a mobile homeowners policy for injury or damage "arising out of a premises . . . that is not an insured location'” precluded coverage for underlying negligent failure-to-warn claims. The court looked to authority from a workers compensation case, where it stated that “the term ‘arising out of' employment means that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury, or that the injury, in some proximate way, had its origin, its source, or its cause in the employment. . . . [T]he employment need not be the sole or predominant causal factor for the injury and . . . the causative circumstance need not have been foreseen or expected.” In this case, it found there to be “an immediate relationship between the injury and a condition of the uninsured premises” (specifically, a gap created by the owner-insured at the entrance to a mobile home), and rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury instead arose from the insureds’ negligent conduct in failing to warn. Separately, the court held that the property did not qualify as an “insured location,” reasoning it was not listed in the declarations and there was no evidence the insureds had resided there or acquired it for use as a residence. Reprinted courtesy of John S. Anooshian, White and Williams LLP, Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, White and Williams LLP, Alexandra M. George, White and Williams LLP and Haley S. Newman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Ferguson may be contacted at fergusone@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Newman may be contacted at newmanh@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

What if the Supreme Court Overrules the Reciprocal Tariffs? Plan Now for Refunds, Protests, and Contract Reconciliation

December 15, 2025 — Brett W. Johnson, T. Troy Galan, Cole Craghan & Thomas Williams - Snell & Wilmer
As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the legality of President Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs,” companies that sell goods internationally face a pivotal inflection point. If the tariffs are struck down, the decision will not simply unwind a trade policy — it may trigger a complex refund process involving billions of dollars in tariffs. This will lead to disputes over who receives repayment, and potential friction between suppliers and customers whose contracts passed tariff costs downstream. Such disputes appear to be on the horizon, as the U.S. Supreme Court considered oral arguments on the reciprocal tariffs on November 5, 2025, and several Justices signaled their skepticism about whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) permits the president to impose tariffs unilaterally. While the outcome remains uncertain, businesses that act now to preserve refund rights and clarify contractual obligations may be best positioned to receive refunds and avoid costly disputes if the tariffs are ordered to be repaid. Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer, Cole Craghan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Craghan may be contacted at ccraghan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Standing When It Comes to Real Property Owned by a Trust

February 23, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is not uncommon for property to be owned in the name of the trust as part of an estate planning agenda. In construction, improvements are made all the time to real property owned in the name of a trust or later transferred to a trust for estate planning purposes. In a recent case, the question became that if the property is owned by the trust does only the trust have standing to file the lawsuit. In this case, homeowners, in their individual capacities, sued a flooring contractor for defective work; however, prior to the lawsuit, the homeowners deeded the home (which would include the flooring in the home) to a revocable trust. The plaintiffs, though, were the trustees of the revocable trust and the settlors of the trust. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Four Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

March 17, 2026 — Payne & Fears
We congratulate our four Payne & Fears attorneys who have been named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars. This recognition highlights the next generation of legal talent, honoring attorneys who have made a strong impact in their practice areas early in their careers. Employment & Labor Taylor Brown Bree Oswald Employment Litigation: Defense Tyler Runge Business Litigation Brian Shaw Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears

Modern Building-Sundt $17M Claim Is Stranded by Hospital Bankruptcy

April 27, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
A $16.9-million claim for work on a hospital addition by a joint venture of contractors Modern Building Co. and Sundt Construction is stuck and delayed indefinitely following the California hospital's December bankruptcy filing. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES