ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Granted Primacy Over Class VI Carbon Storage Wells

December 15, 2025 — Ashleigh Myers, Robert A. James, Michael S. McDonough & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel
On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Texas’s request for primacy over Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, authorizing the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) to issue and oversee permits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) injection projects. The final rule makes Texas the sixth state to secure primacy over Class VI wells—following North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, Arizona and West Virginia—and marks EPA’s third such approval in the last several months. By securing primacy, effective December 15, 2025, Texas gains direct regulatory control over the siting, construction, operation and closure of CO₂ injection wells intended for long-term geological sequestration. This authority enables the state to establish permitting criteria, environmental review procedures and monitoring standards tailored to Texas’s unique geologic formations and existing oil and gas infrastructure. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Applicability of Florida’s Building Code Is a Question of Law

November 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The application of Florida’s Building Code is a question of law for the court. It’s NOT a question for a witness to determine. In a recent personal injury dispute dealing with the tripping and falling on a public sidewalk, a key issue included the application of Florida’s Building Code on a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants where a major portion of the ruling was based on the inapplicability of Florida’s Building Code to the public sidewalk. Even though the plaintiff had an expert witness that opined that the Florida Building Code did apply, the trial court rejected this opinion in determining the Code did not apply:

Whether the Florida Building Code is applicable to this case ultimately is a question of law belonging to the court, not the witness. See Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Ag., Inc., 645 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A. Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law. It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code . . . .” (citations omitted)). As such, it was the responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the building code applies to the sidewalk in this case and whether the code provided evidence of negligence. See Martin v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., No. 6:15-cv-1364-ORL-41KRS, 2017 WL 2928154, at *4 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017) (“Accordingly, [the expert] may not testify as to the applicability or inapplicability of any provision of the Florida Building Code. This Court will determine what provisions, if any, are applicable to the facts of this case.”).

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

---

The Dominguez Case and Deed Fraud: Who Criminals Target and How to Protect Yourself Against Fraud

November 04, 2025 — Lauren P. Merdinger, Ryan D. Konsdorf, Jordin Pettit & Alison Tobin - Snell & Wilmer
Arizonans should be aware of a recent decision from the Arizona Supreme Court that increases consequences for unsuspecting victims of deed fraud. Deeds are official documents that memorialize the owner of real property. When real property is bought, inherited, or otherwise conveyed, the deed is transferred to the new owner, who formally records the document with the county in which the real property exists to signify a change in ownership. However, scammers can create fraudulent deeds by forging landowner’s signatures, purporting to transfer the real property without the rightful owner’s consent. The Arizona Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Dominguez will impact victims of deed fraud moving forward, as it holds that if certain conditions are met, a recorded fraudulent deed can strip landowners of their property rights.1 The Case In Estate of Magdalena Rios De Dominguez v. Renee Kay Dominguez, the Arizona Supreme Court was asked to address a family dispute over an unoccupied piece of real property in Maricopa County.2 In 1995, Magdalena and Isidro Dominguez acquired the property in question. After the couple divorced in 1998, their son Jose and his wife Renee recorded a deed in 2003 purporting to convey the property to themselves, and Jose and Renee began paying the taxes on the property from thereon. In 2020, Magdalena discovered the 2003 recorded deed and claiming it was forged, filed a “quiet title” suit asking the Court to declare her the rightful owner of the property. Reprinted courtesy of Lauren P. Merdinger, Snell & Wilmer, Ryan D. Konsdorf, Snell & Wilmer and Jordin Pettit, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Merdinger may be contacted at lmerdinger@swlaw.com Mr. Konsdorf may be contacted at rkonsdorf@swlaw.com Ms. Pettit may be contacted at jpettit@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Why Travelers Fought a Fire Claim for Invisible Smoke Damage

February 23, 2026 — Elaine Silver - Engineering News-Record
Just 40 minutes after midnight on Sept. 27, 2018, the sky lit up over Birmingham, Ala. A fire engulfed an apartment building under construction—the last-to-be completed section of a wood-framed complex called the Metropolitan. It fueled one of the largest recorded blazes in the city’s history. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---

Court Conditionally Grants Mandamus Relief to Compel Appraisal

February 02, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court conditionally granted the insurer’s writ of mandamus to compel an appraisal after the trial court denied the insurer’s motion to compel appraisal. In re Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8932 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025). The insureds, Jay Steinfeld and Barbara Winthrop (Steinfeld) ,hired Southhampton Group to build their home. Construction began in 2021. Southhampton Group obtained a builder’s risk policy from Zurich which named Steinfeld as an additional insured. Shortly before completion of the home, Sheet Metal Crafts, a subcontractor working on the home’s roof, caused a fire that substantially damaged the home. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Four Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers List

March 03, 2026 — Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – Feb. 20, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that partners Jason Feld, Amir Kahana, Sharon Oh-Kubisch, and Manuel Ugarte were selected to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers® list. Jason Feld is a founding partner of Kahana Feld. He focuses his practice on the defense of homebuilders, contractors, developers, and real estate professionals primarily in construction defect, general liability, insurance defense, construction accident, and real estate matters. He also represents government entities handling construction, premises liability, general liability, and environmental claims. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, as well as personal counsel to several national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

---

Don’t Assert as a Counterclaim to a Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit an Order to Show Cause Claim

October 27, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If there is a construction lien on your property and you don’t like the lien, here are options to deal with the lien:

1. You negotiate a resolution a get a satisfaction of lien to record in the public records. Or, you can transfer the lien to the security of a lien transfer bond, but that just means the lienor would need to foreclose against the bond instead of the real property. In other words, the lien is collateralized by the lien transfer bond and not the real property so it does not resolve the lien.
2. You record a Notice of Contest of Lien to shorten the lienor’s statute of limitations to foreclose on the construction lien to 60 days. (See here.) If the lienor does not timely foreclose, then the lien is of no effect as a matter of law. However, this does force the issue, meaning the lienor may file a lien foreclosure lawsuit sooner than later. (But, if they file the lawsuit sooner, then the lienor was always going to file the lawsuit later.)
3. You can file a lawsuit for an Order to Show Cause under Fla. Stat. s. 713.21(4) and force the lienor to file a lien foreclosure counterclaim within 20 days from service of the show cause summons. (See here.) The only time you’d really do this is if you want to initiate a lawsuit that you’d probably initiate no matter what. Otherwise, the Notice of Contest of Lien is more cost effective and more efficient.

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

---

GRSM Marks Seventh Anniversary as First and Only Full-Service Law Firm in All 50 States, Climbs to #70 on Am Law 100

April 20, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani proudly celebrates the seventh anniversary of its becoming the first and only full-service law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states. Since launching its innovative 50-state platform in April 2019, GRSM has experienced extraordinary growth across markets, practices, and client relationships. In the past seven years, GRSM has expanded its footprint with 20 new offices in both major and secondary markets and doubled its attorney headcount, growing from 940 to more than 2000 lawyers. This growth has propelled GRSM from the 40th to the 11th largest law firm in the United States, according to Law360, while also driving a significant rise on the Am Law 100 rankings, from #103 in 2019 to #70 in 2026. GRSM has served nearly half of the Fortune 500, a testament to its deep bench of lawyers and national capabilities. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---