Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

Navigating Turbulent Waters Ashore: Insurance Lessons from a Navy Project Dispute

February 02, 2026 — Cary D. Steklof & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims. Background In October 2014, a general contractor (“GC”) was awarded a contract by the Navy to renovate buildings at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola. The GC subcontracted work to various subcontractors, including metal framing and drywall, to a subcontractor named EKE. Reprinted courtesy of Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@hunton.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@hunton.com Read the full story...

Ball Janik LLP Welcomes Construction Defect Associate Miguel Bonnelly as Orlando Office Continues to Grow

December 15, 2025 — Ball Janik LLP
ORLANDO, FL – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to welcome Associate Miguel Bonnelly to the firm’s Construction Defect Practice Group in the Orlando office. Bonnelly brings experience from a leading nationwide personal injury law firm, where he represented homeowners and homeowners’ associations (HOAs) and businesses in complex construction matters. From construction defect matters to drafting Chapter 558 notices and conducting hearings, inspections, depositions, mediations, and settlements, Bonnelly is savvy in providing effective solutions for clients’ needs. “We’re pleased to welcome Miguel to the firm,” said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. “His experience representing homeowners in complex construction matters is a perfect match for our firm, and we are eager for his thoughtful, results-driven counsel that will make a difference for our clients.” Bonnelly is fluent in both English and Spanish, creating greater accessibility for firm clients. He received his law degree from the University of Florida Levin College of Law and his bachelor’s degree from the University of Central Florida in legal studies, where he had the highest overall GPA. While in law school, he served as a legal intern at a boutique law firm with a focus on real property disputes, estate administration, and breach of contract claims, and at Community Legal Services of Mid Florida, providing civil aid in the housing unit throughout central Florida. “I’m excited to be joining a firm with such talented professionals and resources that make a profound difference for clients,” said Bonnelly. “The firm’s focus on collaboration and track record for excellence and results make this an ideal opportunity for the next chapter of my legal career.” About Ball Janik LLP Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com/.

Builders Support Most of Bipartisan Housing Reform Bill in Congress

March 31, 2026 — Esther D'Amico - Engineering News-Record
Several homebuilding groups say they support most of the massive housing reform bill making its way through Congress but want to see certain provisions including those related to build-to-rent and manufactured homes changed before it advances any further. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Esther D'Amico, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

“Number nine, Number nine…”: Newark Trial Team Obtains “No Cause” Verdict in Ninth Trial of Year

December 15, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Newark, N.J. (October 21, 2025) - Starting their ninth trial of the year – eight juries, one bench – the trial team of Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin P. Hackett recently obtained a “No Cause” verdict for a national owner, developer, builder, and operator of real estate. While the trial was relatively short, totaling four days and eight witnesses, the “No Cause” verdict was nonetheless gratifying for the client and the New Jersey trial team. As in any slip/trip/fall action, the plaintiff alleged the firm client failed to properly maintain their retail space, which led to the plaintiff slipping, falling and fracturing a femoral condyle bone. This resulted in the plaintiff undergoing surgery and being wheelchair bound for over three months, as well as needing home modifications consisting of an exterior home ramp and commode. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the plaintiff was, is, and will continue to be in pain for the rest of her life, and will require pain management treatment and a future knee replacement. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

AI as Co-Counsel: How Litigators Can Leverage AI for Depositions, Experts, and Trial Preparation

November 21, 2025 — Debrán O’Neil - The Dispute Resolver
Artificial intelligence is everywhere right now, and the legal industry is no exception. It’s a regular feature at CLEs and in client discussions because lawyers are discovering that careful use can save both time and money. But AI is no longer reserved for e-discovery vendors. Litigators are using AI for trial preparation—helping identify themes, test case theories, summarize voluminous records, refine expert testimony, and streamline depositions. While AI is not able to read a witness, gauge credibility, or build trust with a jury like lawyers, it can make preparation more efficient and thorough and help present information in a more digestible and compelling way. Below are practical ways litigators can weave AI into their everyday litigation practice and not get left behind. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Debrán O’Neil, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.
Ms. O'Neil may be contacted at doneil@ccsb.com

HHMR Recognized in 2026 Best Law Firms® Rankings for Construction Litigation and Construction Law

December 22, 2025 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
We are pleased to announce that HHMR has once again been honored in the 2026 edition of the Best Law Firms® rankings. This year our firm received two regional tier designations in Colorado:

Tier 2 in Colorado for Construction Law
Tier 3 in Colorado for Litigation – Construction

These rankings reflect the firm’s sustained commitment to excellence in the construction-industry area and its litigation disciplines. The Best Law Firms program, which is published by Best Lawyers and relies on peer review and other independent factors, serves as an important benchmark for legal quality and client service. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.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

Washington Court of Appeals Narrows Arbitrator Authority in Construction Dispute

November 21, 2025 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent opinion, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals clarified arbitrator limits in Reecer Creek Excavating v. SRI-Rochlin Construction JV,[1] holding that consequential damage waivers are enforceable, fee-shifting depends on who “substantially prevails,” and arbitration awards can be vacated only in narrow circumstances. Reecer Creek Excavating (“Reecer”) was subcontracted by SRI-Rochlin Construction JV (“SRI”) to perform excavation and paving work on a housing development in Ellensburg, Washington. When payment disputes arose, both parties filed breach-of-contract claims and later agreed to private arbitration. Their arbitration agreement included terms mandating that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” and providing for an exception to the finality of the award where the arbitrator exceeded its authority. After a multi-day arbitration, the arbitrator found both parties partly at fault - Reecer for incomplete and defective work, and SRI for withholding certain payments. The net award favored Reecer by about $55,000, with each side ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES