Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

April 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:

A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”

“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.

“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”

Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).

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

Elliott Backed Venture Sues Lloyds Over Avant Cladding, Times Reports

February 17, 2026 — Eamon Farhat - Bloomberg
Elliott Investment Management and British housing tycoon Jeff Fairburn, joint-venture partners in UK homebuilder Avant Homes Group, are suing Lloyds Banking Group Plc over who should pay to fix properties that fail to meet post-Grenfell fire-safety standards, the Times reported. Avant, which faces remediation costs of at least £107 million ($146 million) for potentially dangerous cladding, argues that Lloyds should shoulder part of the bill because most of the developments were built before 2014, when the homebuilder was under the bank’s ownership, the Times reported. Cladding has become a contentious issue in the UK following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, in which dozens died after flames spread rapidly through flammable exterior cladding on the West London high-rise, laying bare deep failures in Britain’s building safety regulations. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eamon Farhat, Bloomberg

Shiloh and Vallejo: The DOI Tale of Two Properties

October 20, 2025 — Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier & Caitlin Vanderkarr - Snell & Wilmer
California courts have certainly been busy as of late. In particular, challenges abound as to the Department of the Interior (the DOI) and its decisions to take certain parcels of land into trust for the purpose of rendering such parcels eligible for gaming activities by certain California tribes. The DOI Shiloh Parcel Dispute The Shiloh parcel, a tract of land the DOI previously approved as land taken into trust for gaming purposes under the restored lands exception of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) on behalf of the Koi Nation of Northern California (The Koi), has been the subject of considerable controversy. Reprinted courtesy of Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier, Snell & Wilmer and Caitlin Vanderkarr, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Staudenmaier may be contacted at hstaudenmaier@swlaw.com Ms. Vanderkarr may be contacted at cvanderkarr@swlaw.com Read the full story...

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...

CA Civil Code § 8850: What Private Multi-state Owners and Developers Building in California in 2026 Need to Know

January 26, 2026 — Anand Gupta - Construction Law Zone Blog
Owners and developers building in California must be aware of a new statute, CA Civil Code § 8850, which takes effect for contracts entered into, on, and after January 1, 2026. The statute will likely apply to most private construction projects; however, a carve-out exists for residential projects that are not mixed use and are four stories or less. When a contractor—or, with proper authorization, a subcontractor—submits a claim related to payment, time extensions, damages, or change orders (encompassing the majority of construction disputes), the owner must provide a written response within 30 days. This response must clearly state which portions of the claim are disputed and which are not. The owner has 60 days from the date of its response to issue payment for those undisputed amounts. Late payments will accrue interest at a rate of two percent per month. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anand Gupta, Robinson & Cole
Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com

Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms: Prevailing Parties Can Recover “Fees on Fees” — Reinforcing Why Builders Should Strike Attorneys’ Fee Clauses From Their Contracts

December 30, 2025 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Colorado developers, builders, and contractors should take notice of a recently published Colorado Court of Appeals decision that increases the financial exposure created by prevailing party attorneys’ fee clauses. In 1046 Munras Properties, L.P. v. Kabod Coffee, 2025 COA 71, the Court held, for the first time in a published Colorado case, that a prevailing party may recover not only contractual attorneys’ fees, but also the attorney fees incurred to obtain those fees. In short: “fees on fees” are now recoverable when a contract contains a broad fee shifting clause. This development underscores the same warning sounded years ago in a prior HHMR blog post titled, Attorney Fee Clauses Are Engraved Invitations to Sue. If prevailing party fee provisions already encouraged litigation, the Munras decision supercharges that incentive. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Congratulations to San Diego Lawyers JohnPaul Salem and Kaylan Bland-Fetter on a Fantastic Result for their HOA Client!

October 21, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner JohnPaul Salem and Associate Kaylan Bland-Fetters successfully defended their HOA-client in a three-week jury trial in San Diego, California, arising out of a Plaintiff-homeowner bringing six causes of action to enforce the governing documents and seeking at least $63,000 in damages. After prevailing on four of the six causes of action in favor of the HOA and containing Plaintiff’s damages to just $7,200 less than the civil statutory minimum and also beating the HOA’s pre-trial offer to compromise, BWB&O’s client brought a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the governing documents and the Davis-Sterling Act (California Civil Code § 5975). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES