Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

Federal Court Upholds Uninsured Contractor Endorsement; Finds Duty to Defend Anyway

November 04, 2025 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of LM Ins. Corp. v. James River Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189320 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2025), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to interpret an Uninsured Contractor Endorsement in the context of an additional insured tender. After a construction accident, the owner and general contractor tendered to a subcontractor, DATO, who had hired plaintiff's employer, Star. Investigations later revealed that DATO did not have a written contract with Star for the work at issue. DATO's insurer, Arch, denied any obligation to provide coverage to all parties seeking coverage, including additional insureds, based on DATO's failure to comply with the "New York Limitation Endorsement," which requires that "you," defined to be Arch's named insured, obtain certain pass through protections from subcontractors for New York projects, including a written contract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

Weather Delay Claim - Owner Delay Pushes Contractor into Worse Seasonal Adverse Weather

November 04, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In government contracting, a contractor is entitled to a time extension for “unusually severe weather.” However, this time extension is typically not compensable (meaning you get time, but not additional compensation). However, “a contractor may bring a claim for compensable delay when government delay pushes a contractor’s performance into a period of worse seasonal adverse-but not unusually severe-weather.” Appeals of - Thalle Construction Company, ASBCA No. 63685, 2025 WL 2496328, n.10 (ASBCA 2025) (citation omitted). In a recent appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, a contractor pursued a weather delay claim. The contractor sought 39 days of adverse weather between the adjusted contract completion date and the actual substantial completion date claiming that the government pushed the contractor’s last 262 days of performance into worse seasonal adverse weather. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

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...

Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision

April 20, 2026 — Tara Martens Miller - Snell & Wilmer
The Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ward v. Bishop Constr., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 51118, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 31, 2025) offers valuable guidance for contractors and construction attorneys navigating the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA). The December 2025 ruling clarifies critical questions about when and how defendants may raise contractor registration defenses, the weight of pretrial stipulations, and the consequences of procedural missteps in construction litigation. This article examines the key takeaways from the decision and offers practical actions for consideration by those working in Idaho’s construction industry. The Facts Behind the Dispute The case arose from a long-standing working relationship between cousins Joel Ward and Ren Bishop dating to the 1990s. Ward performed general construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC, including building, plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, and siding work on projects in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bishop agreed to pay Ward $10 per hour, later increased to $12 per hour, plus one-way travel expenses. Between 2017 and 2019, Ward worked over 1,100 hours but was never paid, totaling $12,443.54 in claimed damages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com

California Supreme Court Approves of Annual Civility Oath for Attorneys, Rejects Incivility As Basis for Disciplinary Measures

December 08, 2025 — Saul Lopez - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Diego, Calif. (October 20, 2025) - Courts and lawmakers in California and across the country are continuing to grapple with the ongoing problem of incivility among lawyers. Nearly every week a new story is publicized in which an attorney is sanctioned or rebuked for sharp rhetoric in filings or combative behavior in the courtroom. The erosion of courtesy threatens not only collegiality but also the fair administration of justice. On July 20, 2023, the State Bar of California Board of Trustees made an effort to restore respect and decorum within the practice of law within the Golden State. It approved and sent proposed measures to improve the civility of attorneys in California to the California Supreme Court for review and approval. The proposed measures included: (1) changes to California Rule of Court 9.7 that would require attorneys to reaffirm their oath of civility annually; and, (2) amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct that would add acts of incivility as a basis for disciplinary measures against attorneys. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saul Lopez, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Lopez may be contacted at Saul.Lopez@lewisbrisbois.com

The Single Source of Truth in Construction Projects: Reality or Myth?

March 24, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The idea of a single source of truth has been a fundamental part of the digital vision in the AEC industry for many years. From centralized CAD storage to BIM collaboration platforms and, more recently, Common Data Environments, the goal stays the same. Project teams want a reliable place where everyone can access the latest information. The phrase “single source of truth” comes from database and information management practices in the IT world, where the goal was to maintain one authoritative record of data and eliminate data redundancy. As the AEC industry began adopting digital tools, the same idea was applied to project information and workflows. Despite decades of technological progress, the question remains whether “one ring that rules them all” can actually be implemented in real construction projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site

March 03, 2026 — Jason Loring - ConsensusDocs
Artificial intelligence has moved from the conference room to the construction site. Contractors are using AI-powered tools to predict schedule delays, monitor safety through drone footage, optimize equipment maintenance and flag potential hazards in real time. These tools deliver genuine efficiency gains, but they also introduce risks that most construction contracts do not anticipate and many project teams aren’t yet equipped to manage. The problem is that AI tools are probabilistic and not determinative, meaning that they can “hallucinate”: generating confident, but completely wrong, information. Your AI scheduling software might therefore predict a delay that never materializes, causing unnecessary resource mobilization. Your drone monitoring might flag a nonexistent safety hazard, stopping work and costing productivity. Or worse, it might miss a real hazard entirely. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Loring, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Loring may be contacted at jloring@joneswalker.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES