ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

March 10, 2026 — Payne & Fears LLP
Five Payne & Fears attorneys have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list in recognition of their work across a range of practice areas. This honor reflects their dedication to their clients, depth of experience, and the high standard of service they bring to every matter. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Fraud Allegations Stymie Additional Insured’s Request for a Defense

May 14, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s complaint seeking a defense of the underlying case alleging fraud. Renovation Realty, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21409 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026). Mara Fortin sued Renovation Realty and others (“Fortin litigation”) from the fraudulent sale of a residence. The underlying complaint alleged Renovation “deliberately misrepresented of the residence as ‘completely remodeled’ and ‘meticulously maintained’.” The defendants, however, including Renovation, “knew from sources including a pre-renovation termite report documenting fungus and dry rot . . . that the Property harbored pre-existing material defects.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Tariffs As Taxes — What Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Means for Contractors and the WSDOT Specifications

March 17, 2026 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In October 2025, we explored a pressing question for public works contractors: should post-contract award tariffs be reimbursable? The crux of that analysis was whether tariffs imposed after contract award constitute a tax under the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications, triggering reimbursement under Section 1-07.1(5)B (“tax changes”). Since then, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump has clarified the legal nature of tariffs in a way that could significantly affect this debate. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the President had the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose broad tariffs on imports. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

---

Measure Twice, Cut (the Check) Once: Liability for Cybercrime and How to Avoid It

December 15, 2025 — Curt Martin, Richard Volack & Quinn Kuriger - ConsensusDocs
The well-known maxim among carpenters – “measure twice, cut once” – serves as a prudent reminder in the context of construction progress payments, which have become increasingly vulnerable to cybercriminal activity. Consider the following scenario: a joint venture contractor had been receiving progress payments via wire transfer from the project owner. A cybercriminal infiltrated the contractor’s IT infrastructure, identified a pending invoice, and impersonated an employee to redirect the payment. The hacker initially requested that the funds be sent to a new account in rural New York under the general contractor’s name, rather than to the joint venture’s established Houston account. The owner wisely inquired why it should pay the general contractor and not the joint venture who the owner had paid on the prior twenty-nine progress payments. The hacker quickly corrected its request, submitted a new request that misspelled the joint venture’s name, and specified ACH to a third bank, this time in Florida. Despite these glaring red flags, the owner less wisely wired $460,000 to the hacker’s account. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. , Richard Volack, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Quinn Kuriger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com Mr. Kuriger may be contacted at qkuriger@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Dallas County District Court Grants Kahana Feld’s Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

December 30, 2025 — Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld successfully obtained dismissal of a lawsuit in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. The Court granted our Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue their claims after more than 18 months of inactivity, despite an upcoming trial date. Our team demonstrated that the plaintiff had not initiated discovery or scheduled depositions, and furthermore, the delay was not excused by former counsel’s withdrawal. Consequently, the judge declined the plaintiff’s request for additional time and dismissed the case without prejudice. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

---

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...

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers

June 02, 2026 — Ryan J. Regula - Snell & Wilmer
Developers and practitioners evaluating data center projects in Arizona face a regulatory environment shifting on three fronts simultaneously. Federal executive orders are opening new land, streamlining permitting, and channeling financial incentives toward qualifying projects — but they are not preempting the state and local rules that most directly affect project economics. A carve-out in the December 2025 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework Executive Order preserves Arizona’s authority over data center infrastructure, meaning the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) rate-classification docket, municipal zoning restrictions, water-use ordinances, and pending grid cost-allocation legislation remain the binding constraints on project feasibility. Understanding where federal tailwinds end and state and local headwinds begin is essential for any developer sizing risk or selecting sites in the state. The Federal Landscape: An Interlocking Framework of Executive Orders Five interlocking executive orders are accelerating data center development nationally, but none overrides Arizona’s authority over siting energy, or infrastructure. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Regula, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Regula may be contacted at rregula@swlaw.com

---