Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Viability of Takings Claims Under Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Act

November 09, 2025 — Ed J. Hermes, Jeremy J. Stewart, Benjamin J. Mills & Emily Statham - Snell & Wilmer
In a decision cementing a split with the Tenth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit recently held that property owners’ unclaimed property is not taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment where it is held in trust by the State. See Garza v. Woods, No. 24-1064, 2025 WL 2435221 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims because sovereign immunity barred suit against the Arizona Department of Revenue (“Department”). See Garza v. Woods, No. CV-22-01310-PHX-JJT, 2023 WL 5608414 (D. Ariz. Aug. 30, 2023). The Ninth Circuit reversed this portion of the district court decision and allowed plaintiffs’ takings and due process claims because they plausibly alleged that the Department unconstitutionally seized their property under Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Law (“UPA”). Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Law Arizona’s UPA presumes that certain types of property have been abandoned if unclaimed within a statutory period. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 44-302(A). Holders of presumably abandoned property must send a written notice to the apparent owner, provide a report to the Department, and ultimately deliver the unclaimed property to the Department. Id. 44-302(E), 44-308(A). Though the Department need not provide actual notice to apparent owners that it is in possession of their property, the UPA requires the Department to operate a website that lists the unclaimed property in its possession. See id. 44-309 (A), 44-309(B). The UPA further requires the Department to deposit all unclaimed money in the state’s general fund. Id. 44-313(A). Reprinted courtesy of Ed J. Hermes, Snell & Wilmer, Jeremy J. Stewart, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Mills, Snell & Wilmer and Emily Statham, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Hermes may be contacted at ehermes@swlaw.com Mr. Stewart may be contacted at jjstewart@swlaw.com Mr. Mills may be contacted at bemills@swlaw.com Ms. Statham may be contacted at estatham@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Construction’s AI Moment — Why Contractors Are Increasingly Optimistic

December 30, 2025 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
A new industry research report from Dodge Construction Network in partnership with CMiC reveals a striking level of optimism among contractors about the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in construction. According to the survey, 87% of contractors believe AI will meaningfully transform their businesses, even though current adoption remains relatively low. This optimism reflects a growing recognition that AI isn’t just a buzzword, but a set of capabilities beginning to deliver tangible operational value across the built environment. Evolving roles One of the most interesting shifts the report highlights is how contractors envision their own roles evolving. Instead of being bogged down in repetitive administrative tasks, project teams expect AI to enable them to work more strategically, focusing on predictive insights rather than reactive fire-fighting. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Quick Note: Don’t Spoil Evidence!!!!

March 10, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The phrase “spoliation of evidence” is a phrase that gets used, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. The reason is that if evidence is legitimately spoiled, the opposing party wants an adverse inference jury instruction. There are two potential adverse inference jury instructions dealing with spoliation of evidence, neither of which are good, and one of which you definitely don’t want. A recent case discusses these jury instructions (check here) in a slip and fall personal injury case. The bottom line is that you need to preserve evidence relevant to a claim. Don’t lose it. Don’t intentionally destroy it. Don’t pretend it does not exist. Don’t do all the things that hinder the preservation and ultimate production of the relevant evidence. An adverse inference jury instruction (or an adverse inference implication in a non-jury trial) could be much, much worse. The facts are what the facts are. The best thing you can do is confront the facts. Confront the bad facts just like the good facts. The nature of any dispute is that there will be both good and bad facts. Bad facts can hopefully be explained recognizing there will be bad facts on the other side too. Sometimes, the bad facts warrant major strategic considerations and shifting the focus of how a dispute will be handled and presented. Whatever you do, don’t put yourself in a position where you are spoiling evidence. Once you get an adverse inference instruction, that’s it, as it’s very tough to overcome. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test

March 31, 2026 — Catherine Maronski - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards. The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Catherine Maronski, Robinson Cole
Ms. Maronski may be contacted at cmaronski@rc.com

Substantiating Termination for Convenience Costs

November 09, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience clause is an important provision in construction contracts, particularly for the owner. An owner needs the contractual right to terminate a contractor for convenience. This means the owner does NOT need a reason to exercise a termination. This is night-and-day different from a termination for cause (or default) wherein an owner must have a material basis to exercise that right. Sometimes, the relationship is not where it should be, or not what was expected, or performance does not rise up to the level you require but does not rise up to a material breach. The termination for convenience clause gives the owner the discretion to just end the relationship. As a contractor, you need to understand the types of damages (costs) you are entitled if an owner exercises the termination for convenience. Don’t overlook this, because if an owner exercises the termination for convenience, you want to make sure you feel like you are protected. This could include a termination for convenience fee. There are a number of ways this can be accomplished, but you need to be sure you are entitled to costs incurred through the date of termination with reasonable overhead and profit, demobilization costs, early return fees, and costs incurred due to the termination. Regardless, keep in mind that it is your burden, as the contractor, to prove these costs with a reasonable degree of certainty. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Course of Conduct Can Serve as Waiver or Modification of Parties’ Contract

December 22, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When you enter into a contract, the language in the contract means something. And if you don’t follow what the contract says, it will be used against you. It can be used to support the argument that you breached the contract. Or it can be used to demonstrate your lack of compliance with the contract does not entitle you to the recourse you are seeking. However, this does not mean under certain circumstances the language of the contract cannot be waived or modified by the parties’ course of conduct. In a recent dispute, an owner and contractor sued each other under a cost-plus contract. The contractor recorded a construction lien and moved to foreclose its construction lien. The owner claimed it was over-charged and claimed the contractor breached the contract. The contractor also claimed it was not timely paid with improperly withheld payment applications. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the contractor, which was affirmed on appeal based on the parties’ course of dealing:

The trial court concluded that, although the parties’ cost-plus contract required that all change orders be approved in writing, the summary judgment record established that this provision was routinely waived by the parties’ course of dealing: [owner] would orally request changes to the project; [contractor] would perform those changes; and [owner] would pay the invoices for those changes.

Moscato Corp. v. Mutchnik Construction Group, Inc., 411 So.3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Meet BWB&O’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars in Colorado!

April 08, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is thrilled to share that Partner Devin Brunson and Associate Melissa Youngpeter have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 Colorado Rising Stars list. This recognition reflects their exceptional work in Personal Injury and Civil Litigation.

SUPER LAWYERS RISING STARS

Devin Brunson: 2024-2026

Melissa Youngpeter: 2026

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

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

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES