Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms: Prevailing Parties Can Recover “Fees on Fees” — Reinforcing Why Builders Should Strike Attorneys’ Fee Clauses From Their Contracts

December 30, 2025 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Colorado developers, builders, and contractors should take notice of a recently published Colorado Court of Appeals decision that increases the financial exposure created by prevailing party attorneys’ fee clauses. In 1046 Munras Properties, L.P. v. Kabod Coffee, 2025 COA 71, the Court held, for the first time in a published Colorado case, that a prevailing party may recover not only contractual attorneys’ fees, but also the attorney fees incurred to obtain those fees. In short: “fees on fees” are now recoverable when a contract contains a broad fee shifting clause. This development underscores the same warning sounded years ago in a prior HHMR blog post titled, Attorney Fee Clauses Are Engraved Invitations to Sue. If prevailing party fee provisions already encouraged litigation, the Munras decision supercharges that incentive. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Supreme Court Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet

March 31, 2026 — Christopher Barnett - Construction Executive
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump did what many expected: It held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. What few anticipated was the speed of what followed: Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposed a 10% global surcharge effective February 24, and signaled forthcoming Section 301 investigations against most major trading partners. For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Barnett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Va. Contractor Fined for Alleged DC Wage and Classification Violations

January 06, 2026 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
A Virginia contractor will pay $725,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the District of Columbia’s wage and hour laws on more than a dozen public housing projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

John Palmeri and Peter Siachos Named to 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America

February 17, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani is proud to announce that Partners John Palmeri and Peter Siachos have been named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for 2026. Their inclusion reflects their extensive trial experience, national leadership roles, and sustained excellence representing clients in complex, high-stakes matters. Now in its 21st year, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America guide honors attorneys who lead the profession through exceptional advocacy, dedication to clients, and influence within their firms and communities. Selected through yearlong research, peer discussion, and robust nominations, the guide recognizes lawyers who continue to shape the legal landscape at the highest levels. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Cross-Office Team Secures Litigation Stay and Order of Arbitration on Behalf of Hotel Developer

February 17, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York Partner Minyao Wang, Chicago Partner Bryan Sugar, and Denver/Washington, D.C. Partner Christopher Wood secured a victory on behalf of Lewis Brisbois’ client, a hotel developer, when the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted the client’s motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. In this matter, the 39 plaintiffs, represented by a New York based law firm that focuses on EB-5 litigation against high-end real estate developers, were foreign nationals living in China or Taiwan who were seeking EB-5 visas and invested in a lending company. The lending company loaned money to entities that were managing a project that involved renovating a hotel and constructing a mixed-use tower in downtown Chicago. Disputes developed among the parties. The foreign investors organized informally and ultimately filed suit against Lewis Brisbois’ client, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion, and conspiracy, as well as aiding and abetting conversion. The defendants faced exposure of at least $20 million. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

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

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

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.

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES