ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California’s Fair Payment Act: What Every Owner, Developer, and Contractor Should Know About SB 440

November 18, 2025 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
While most states have enacted various forms of prompt payment laws for construction projects, California Senate Bill 440, known as the Private Works Change Order Fair Payment Act, marks a pivotal change in how payment obligations related to change orders are handled on private construction projects. Signed into law on October 10, 2025 by Governor Newsom, its implementation will affect owners, developers, contractors, and subcontractors alike. Importantly, it sets clear standards for processing change-order claims, imposing decisive deadlines and remedies. The Big Picture SB 440, effective for private contracts beginning on January 1, 2026, establishes a formal claim resolution process for work stemming from change orders on private projects. Key provisions include:

• A contractor or subcontractor may submit a claim (for a time extension or additional compensation) and the owner must provide a written statement within 30 days identifying disputed and undisputed portions.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

---

The Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas Explosion

March 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a recent Seventh Circuit decision, Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Navigators Insurance Company, the court addressed a theme that policyholders are often confronted with by insurers[1] – insurers disputing additional insured coverage where the named insured is not named in the underlying action. The court aptly rejected this position since it was undisputed that the bodily injuries alleged in the underlying lawsuits were due to a gas explosion that was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the named insured’s acts or omissions. I. Background The additional insureds, Atlanta Gas Light Company and Southern Company Gas (collectively, “AGL”), retained the named insured, United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”), to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned in Georgia. USIC failed to mark a certain gas line, which was later struck by a boring company, leading to an explosion that injured three people. Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

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.

---

Don’t Breach Your Contract, but If You Do, Don’t Breach First

December 22, 2025 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, it’s been a while since my last post here at Musings due to travel, work, Thanksgiving, etc. so I thought I’d let a recent case remind us all that while breaching a construction contract is bad, doing it first is even worse. This is the so called “doctrine of first breach” that basically states that if both parties are in breach (or even just one), then the first to breach is the one that will bear the costs of breach. The doctrine also states that the one first to breach first can’t enforce any of its rights going forward. The plaintiff in SEG Props. LLC v. NTC Mazzuca Constr.,Inc., the Virginia Court of Appeals considered a first breach scenario that was pretty extreme. The basic facts are as follows: SEG hired Mazzuca to build a private shooting range and hired a property manager (Jones, Lang, LaSalle, Inc. (“JLL”)) as its project representative. Per the contract, if Mazzuca provided a payment application on or before the 25th of the month, payment was due by the 25th of the following month. In no event was payment to be made more than 30 days from receipt of the payment application by the owner’s representative. Even where there was a dispute, the undisputed amounts were to be paid. Mazzuca and JLL used a so called “pencil” method for payment applications that involved JLL reviewing the payment applications for errors and then a final payment application with the corrections being sent to the Architect. Needless to say there were change orders and disputes, but after the smoke cleared, it was obvious that from the first payment application, SEG had failed to make timely payment (for the whole saga, please read the case as it is too long for this post). Later, SEG terminated Mazzuca for cause upon one day’s notice that SEG would be supplementing Mazzuca’s workforce. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Applicability of Florida’s Building Code Is a Question of Law

November 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The application of Florida’s Building Code is a question of law for the court. It’s NOT a question for a witness to determine. In a recent personal injury dispute dealing with the tripping and falling on a public sidewalk, a key issue included the application of Florida’s Building Code on a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants where a major portion of the ruling was based on the inapplicability of Florida’s Building Code to the public sidewalk. Even though the plaintiff had an expert witness that opined that the Florida Building Code did apply, the trial court rejected this opinion in determining the Code did not apply:

Whether the Florida Building Code is applicable to this case ultimately is a question of law belonging to the court, not the witness. See Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Ag., Inc., 645 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A. Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law. It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code . . . .” (citations omitted)). As such, it was the responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the building code applies to the sidewalk in this case and whether the code provided evidence of negligence. See Martin v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., No. 6:15-cv-1364-ORL-41KRS, 2017 WL 2928154, at *4 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017) (“Accordingly, [the expert] may not testify as to the applicability or inapplicability of any provision of the Florida Building Code. This Court will determine what provisions, if any, are applicable to the facts of this case.”).

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

---

How to Document Changes and Preserve Claims Without Starting a Fight

December 02, 2025 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Construction is a team sport, but you can play nice while still preserving your contractual rights. In every construction project, changes happen and disagreements arise. The trouble comes when during formal dispute resolution months (or years) later, the parties argue about the basic facts of what the issue was, what was authorized, who knew, and whether notice was given. In formal dispute resolution, the most compelling evidence is the contemporaneous, factual documentation in the project record, but many fail to document these issues for fear of harming the relationship with the owner, general contractor, or subcontractor. This article provides practical guidance on how to document changes and potential claims in a way that preserves relationships and avoids escalation during the project itself. Here’s how to document changes (or your disagreement) to preserve your contract rights and ability to make a claim later, without jeopardizing the working relationship during construction. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

---

Four Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers List

March 03, 2026 — Kahana Feld
IRVINE, CA – Feb. 20, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that partners Jason Feld, Amir Kahana, Sharon Oh-Kubisch, and Manuel Ugarte were selected to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers® list. Jason Feld is a founding partner of Kahana Feld. He focuses his practice on the defense of homebuilders, contractors, developers, and real estate professionals primarily in construction defect, general liability, insurance defense, construction accident, and real estate matters. He also represents government entities handling construction, premises liability, general liability, and environmental claims. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, as well as personal counsel to several national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

---

Damage from Frozen Pipes Excluded from Coverage

March 31, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Texas law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for damage to the insured’s commercial building due to the bursting of frozen pipes. Barona v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257379 (S.D. Texas Dec. 12, 2025). Freezing weather froze Barona’s plumbing fixtures, causing significant water damage to the commercial property when the plumbing eventually expanded and burst. State Farm sent an inspector. During the inspection, Barona stated that he turned off the heat to his building but did not shut off the water supply or drain the pipes. State Farm denied covered based on the policy’s exclusion for frozen plumbing. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---