Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages

March 17, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages. The Nabors Case In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract

January 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.” A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later

April 14, 2026 — Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLP
Turnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation. The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims. Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt. These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association. The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences: Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects. Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable. Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign. Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement. These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance. Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims. Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.

Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?

June 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages. As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

ZEC 2.0: New York’s Zero Emissions Credit Program Gets an Extension and a Reboot

February 10, 2026 — Stephen J. Humes & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In a landmark move that could shape New York’s energy landscape for decades, state officials have taken steps to both preserve its existing nuclear power facilities and significantly expand its advanced nuclear capacity. These actions are part of a broader strategy to maintain grid reliability and meet both escalating energy demand and the state’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and zero carbon goals. Renewing the Zero Emissions Credit Program On January 22, 2026, the New York Public Services Commission (PSC) unanimously voted to extend and reboot the Zero Emissions Credit program (now called ZEC 2.0) to ensure that New York’s four upstate nuclear reactors maintain operations through 2049. The program, which began in 2016, is designed to provide revenue subsidies for legacy nuclear facilities that have been facing financial difficulties in New York’s competitive wholesale power markets. State officials have stated that the benefits of ensuring the continued operations of these reactors far outweigh the costs due to the lack of zero-emissions alternatives and the importance of ensuring grid reliability in the face of escalating energy demand from large loads like data centers. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI

March 03, 2026 — Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery. Facts Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com 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

Quick Note: Include Key Time Related Facts in Contract to Avoid an Ambiguity

February 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When drafting or negotiating a contract, it is important to consider key time-related facts. In other words, if there are important provisions dealing with time, you don’t want to leave them undefined as that can create an ambiguity in the contract. In a recent case dealing with an investment contract, discussed here, that’s exactly what happened. The contract allowed investors to exercise an option to return their equity in exchange for a refund of their investment but the contract didn’t contain an expiration date on when the option must be exercised. The investors tried to exercise the option two years later leading to a dispute as to whether that was a “reasonable time.” This is because the lack of clarity regarding this temporal fact led to a latent ambiguity meaning it was a question of fact as to whether the investors exercising the option two years later was reasonable under the circumstances. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES