Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Massachusetts Settlement Targets Mortgage-Backed “Homeowner Benefit” Agreements

April 08, 2026 — A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Mehul N. Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas - Sheppard
On March 11, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a consent order with a real estate-related lender’s subsidiary, and affiliated individuals resolving allegations that the company violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by deceptively marketing mortgage-backed “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” to financially struggling homeowners. According to the complaint, the company offered homeowners relatively small upfront cash payments, typically less than $1,500, in exchange for a 40-year exclusive right to act as the listing broker if the homeowner later sold the property. The Attorney General alleged that the agreements also triggered substantial payment obligations upon other transfers, including death or foreclosure, and that the transactions were secured by recorded mortgages that could interfere with refinancing, home-equity access, or the ability to sell the home. The complaint further alleged that the company marketed the product to vulnerable consumers searching for loans or public benefits while obscuring the true nature of the transaction. Reprinted courtesy of A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Sheppard, Mehul N. Madia, Sheppard and Maxwell Earp-Thomas, Sheppard Mr. Dhaliwal may be contacted at adhaliwal@sheppard.com Mr. Madia may be contacted at mmadia@sheppard.com Mr. Earp-Thomas may be contacted at mearp-thomas@sheppard.com Read the full story...

Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications

March 31, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages. In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison

June 02, 2026 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
1. Introduction As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years. The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

Florida’s Proposed HB 255: A Quiet Shift That Could Reshape Condo Defect Liability

January 21, 2026 — Matt Maranges - ConsensusDocs
In Florida, developers and contractors work under strict clocks. Section 95.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, sets two firm deadlines for construction claims: a four-year statute of limitations and a seven-year statute of repose. Those timelines govern when an owner or condominium association may pursue claims for alleged defects. Once the repose period ends, the claim is barred regardless of when the problem surfaced. Condominium law complicates that scheme. Section 718.124 delays the start of the limitation and repose periods on association claims until control of the board shifts from the developer to the unit owners. The logic is simple: a developer-controlled board cannot be expected to sue the developer. The practical effect is more sweeping. If turnover occurs late in the life of a project, the repose period may remain tolled for years, extending exposure far beyond the seven years that apply everywhere else. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Maranges, Jones Walker
Mr. Maranges may be contacted at mmaranges@joneswalker.com

Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

May 26, 2026 — Gray Development Group
PHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction. The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale. The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market. According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona. Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing. ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997. About Gray Development Group Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.

CA Civil Code § 8850: What Private Multi-state Owners and Developers Building in California in 2026 Need to Know

January 26, 2026 — Anand Gupta - Construction Law Zone Blog
Owners and developers building in California must be aware of a new statute, CA Civil Code § 8850, which takes effect for contracts entered into, on, and after January 1, 2026. The statute will likely apply to most private construction projects; however, a carve-out exists for residential projects that are not mixed use and are four stories or less. When a contractor—or, with proper authorization, a subcontractor—submits a claim related to payment, time extensions, damages, or change orders (encompassing the majority of construction disputes), the owner must provide a written response within 30 days. This response must clearly state which portions of the claim are disputed and which are not. The owner has 60 days from the date of its response to issue payment for those undisputed amounts. Late payments will accrue interest at a rate of two percent per month. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anand Gupta, Robinson & Cole
Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com

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

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES