Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness Directory

Traub Lieberman Partner Jessica Kull Obtains Favorable Arbitration Award In Year-Long High-Stakes Construction Defect Case

November 09, 2025 — Jessica N. Kull - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jessica Kull and the Traub Lieberman litigation team obtained an extremely favorable outcome in a highly contentious construction defect arbitration hearing on behalf of their client, a well-known general contractor, LG Construction Group LLC (“LG”). The litigation lasted a total of 6 years, with the arbitration evidentiary hearing portion continuing for 12 months. In 2019, the Claimant, a wealthy homeowner, filed an arbitration demand against both LG and the luxury brand architecture firm that she hired to construct a multi-million-dollar lakefront home in Wilmette, Illinois. The Claimant alleged construction defects totaling approximately $13 million in damages. Her claims included alleged defects to the exterior and interior of the home. In turn, Jessica filed third-party claims against approximately 20 subcontractors involved in performing the work. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com

Fatalities Edge Down: New Data Reveals a Promising Decline

April 27, 2026 — Construction Executive
Construction fatalities in the United States declined slightly in 2024, according to new data released from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sector recorded just over 1,000 worker deaths last year—a modest decrease from the previous year but still among the highest totals of any industry. Falls remained the leading cause of death, accounting for roughly one-third of all construction fatalities. Transportation incidents—including workers struck by vehicles or equipment—ranked second, followed by contact with objects or equipment and electrocutions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Government Claiming Contract Is Void Ab Initio by Contractor Knowingly Making False Statements

January 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can the federal government declare a contract “void ab initio” or void from the beginning? Yes, if the government can “prove that the contractor (a) obtained the contract by (b) knowingly (c) making a false statement.” MLB Transportation v. U.S., 2025 WL 2962897, *8 (Fed.Cl. 2025) (citation omitted).

Where a contractor “obtained [a] contract by knowingly falsely stating that it was a small business … [the] government contract [is] tainted from its inception by fraud [and] is void ab initio.” The general rule that “a Government contract tainted by fraud or wrong-doing is void ab initio … protects the integrity of the federal contracting process and safeguards the public from undetectable threats to the public fisc.” A contract found to be void ab initio has “no legal effect,” and is “[n]ull from the beginning, as from the first moment when a contract is entered into.”

MLB Transportation, supra (citations omitted).

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

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.

Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements

April 14, 2026 — Abby Dvorkin - Snell & Wilmer
The ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project. Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Abby Dvorkin, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Dvorkin may be contacted at advorkin@swlaw.com

Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications

March 31, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages. In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

$400M Tunnel Project Faces Scrutiny from Nashville Leaders

November 21, 2025 — Vince Kong - Engineering News-Record
As state and local officials in Tennessee raise concerns over limited transparency surrounding the proposed $400-million Music City Loop - a transit tunnel in Nashville intended to connect downtown with the city’s international airport - lead developer The Boring Co. has quietly begun excavation near the Tennessee State Capitol. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vince Kong, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Kong may be contacted at kongv@enr.com

An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract

January 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.” A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted. 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