ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

May 05, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured. The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured: This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2026 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees!

February 23, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Notably, Nicole Whyte was also selected to the Top 50 Orange County Super Lawyers list, an honor reflecting her outstanding work, leadership, and impact in the legal community. Partners Kyle Riddles and Courtney Serrato, along with Associate Kevin Moore, were also recognized as 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

How Mobile Tools Are Capturing Safety Data on Jobsites

April 08, 2026 — Michael Bruns - Construction Executive
Traditionally, construction safety management is “reactive compliance”—reporting on an incident, filling out a form on paper or electronically, taking a picture and filing it away for compliance purposes. Safety management is shifting from reactive to proactive. Forward-thinking companies are using data and leading indicators to identify risks before incidents happen, not just document injuries after the fact. Mobile tools have completely changed the way safety operations work on construction sites, enabling that transition to proactive safety management. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bruns, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Subrogation Insight: Expert Testimony Admissible Despite Post-Loss Repairs

December 30, 2025 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ghaznavi v. Arby Constr., Inc., No. 14-24-00213-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 839, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly excluded the plaintiffs’, Kambiz Moavenzadeh Ghaznavi and Anahita Nokkonejad (collectively, the Ghaznavis), liability expert. The case arose from a fire at the Ghaznavis’ residence. The trial court held that because the Ghaznavis’ expert did not physically inspect certain fire damaged areas before they were repaired, the expert’s testimony was unreliable and thus inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the expert’s review of photographs of the repaired areas and his testimony explaining his opinions were sufficient to survive summary judgment. In this case, the Ghaznavis’ hired the defendant, Arby Construction Inc. d/b/a National Residential Services (Arby Constr.), to install new tiling in a corridor inside their home. The corridor was adjacent to the garage. While Arby Constr. was performing the work, the Ghaznavis asked the defendant to fix an outlet inside the garage that was not working. Arby Constr. installed a new wire that connected the outlet to the garage door opener at the ceiling of the garage. Less than 2 months later, a fire occurred in the garage area. The fire marshal placed the origin of the fire in the ceiling of the corridor adjacent to the garage. The fire marshal’s report stated that “faulty wiring in the corridor behind the garage” caused the fire. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Successful KF Defense Results in Dismissal with Prejudice

January 13, 2026 — Elliott Wright & William "Pat" Durland - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld Partner Elliott Wright and Senior Counsel William “Pat” Durland secured a major victory for their client with a complete dismissal of all claims by establishing that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Texas Tort Claims Act’s jurisdictional prerequisites through our Plea to the Jurisdiction. Our Plea to the Jurisdiction demonstrated that governmental immunity applies unless a Plaintiff can prove a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver, and that the Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving such a waiver. In this case, we showed that the Plaintiff provided no timely statutory notice as required by §101.101 of the TTCA and the City Charter’s six-month notice requirement, making jurisdiction impossible to invoke. Without proper notice—formal or actual—the court has no power to hear the case, and the defect cannot be cured by amendment.  Reprinted courtesy of Elliott Wright, Kahana Feld and William "Pat" Durland, Kahana Feld Mr. Wright may be contacted at ewright@kahanafeld.com Mr. Durland may be contacted at wdurland@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

---

“He Chose…Poorly: How Bad DSC Clauses Lead to Project Doom in the Last Crusade of Construction Risk”

March 10, 2026 — Curt Martin & Lee Banta - ConsensusDocs
“We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and X never, ever marks the spot.” That’s the advice that Indiana Jones offered in the Last Crusade film. But what’s beneath the surface isn’t just important to adventure archaeologists. It has real-world application to our industry, where success depends on the stability of materials below the surface. The study of geology and soils has ancient roots. Egyptians relied on soil stability for the pyramids; Rome built a continent-wide roadway system utilizing subgrade preparation techniques; Medieval builders implemented a rudimentary foundation pier system; Henri Gautier studied what is now called the “angle of repose” for French retaining walls in the early 18th Century. Through the 19th Century, contractors bore the risk of the stability of their work, and the attendant peril of unforeseen site conditions. But in the early 20th Century, design trades continued to develop increased understanding of soil and underground conditions. In the 1920’s US federal contracts began employing “differing site conditions” clauses, which provided for cost/time adjustments if subsurface conditions differed from expectations. Industry forms followed the federal policy, and these clauses became almost universally accepted. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lee Banta, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Midwest Team Secures Resolution of Matter for Homeowners’ Association Client, Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees

February 10, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Kansas City/Wichita Partner Alan L. Rupe and Kansas City Associate Delaney McCoy recently achieved a victory on behalf of their client, a homeowners’ association that was sued after denying a solar panel application. The plaintiff homeowners challenged the association’s decision in court, and after extensive—and costly—litigation, the court ultimately determined that the dispute was not yet ripe for judicial review. With that threshold issue resolved, the parties were able to work collaboratively to address the solar panel matter itself. But one significant question remained: whether the association was entitled to recover its legal fees under the declaration, despite the American Rule, which generally requires each party to bear its own costs. The client felt understandably taken advantage of because this issue could—and should—have been resolved without litigation. Considerable time and resources were diverted from the community for the advantage of a single household, so the Lewis Brisbois team continued to advocate for the association’s contractual right to recover fees. After oral argument, the Court agreed, enforcing the fee‑shifting provisions in the governing documents and ruling in favor of the homeowners’ association. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Application of Ordinance and Law Coverage in Property Insurance Policy and Twenty-Five Percent Rule

December 08, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case involved a homeowner’s all-risk property insurance policy with ordinance and law coverage. This ordinance and law coverage required the carrier “to cover costs that the [insureds] incur as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace ‘the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against.” Weston v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2307a (Fla. 2d DCA 2025). The property insurance policy required the insurer to pay the actual cash value of the loss, minus any deductible, and “any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred.” Id. Here, the insureds sustained roof damage from a storm. The insureds had an expert that opined, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the entire roof needed to be replaced because “[t]here was damage to more than twenty-five percent of the roof, and the Florida Building Code provided that if more than twenty-five percent of the roof was damaged, then the entire roof should be replaced.” Weston, supra. The insureds also had an expert that testified to an estimate- the replacement cost of the damage as well as the actual cash value of that damage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---