ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Yet Another Reason That Your Contract Matters

February 10, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed on several occasions the fact that construction contracts matter. The words in contracts matter and, in Virginia (as well as other states), most provisions, if not all will be enforced to the letter. Recently, the Western District of Virginia federal court ruled in a way that reminded me of another reason for a well-drafted contract. In Rockingham Precast, Inc. v. American Infrastructure – Maryland, Inc. the Western District of Virginia Court considered a motion to transfer the venue to Maryland filed by American Infrastructure. The plaintiff, Rockingham Precast, a Virginia-based company sued in Virginia. American Infrastructure conceded that VA could be a proper forum for the lawsuit but argued that the form was much too inconvenient and costly for the party and non-party witnesses and that the cost made the forum an unfair place to try the case. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghi

Spain’s Sagrada Familia: Contemporary Construction Methods Speed Iconic Basilica to Completion

March 24, 2026 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
In 2014, the entity behind construction of one of the world’s most iconic churches—the wildly imaginative Sagrada Familia basilica in Barcelona, Spain—contacted global consultant Arup with a challenge: Could the firm help the project team update designs developed more than a century earlier, to ensure that a critical project component was built to be structurally sound? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.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

---

CARB Issues Proposed Climate Disclosure Regulations

January 13, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Ashleigh Myers & Karen Eskander - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On December 9, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued proposed regulations and a staff report for California’s comprehensive climate disclosure laws, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261). These proposed regulations come less than a month after the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction temporarily halting enforcement of SB 261, at least until a January 9, 2026, hearing on the plaintiffs’ requested longer-term injunction through the remainder of the First Amendment challenge to the laws. The draft regulations would adopt some, but not all, of the provisions proposed by CARB in its public workshops on the laws to date, and notably would scale back applicability to those companies above a threshold level of sales in the state. The proposed regulations also define key terms, establish the program fee structures, explain fee enforcement and set initial reporting timelines. The written comment period begins on December 26, 2025, and ends on February 9, 2026. CARB will hold a Time to Negotiate Limitation on Remedies and Damages Is on the Front EndFebruary 10, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember, when it comes to contracts, the time to negotiate and enter into mutually agreed upon bargains is on the front end. And, if the contract is not negotiable, at least you know that and can make the business decision whether you want to accept the bargains and risks. If you don’t, well, you can walk away. Move onto another deal. If you do, then you make the business decision as to the bargains or risk transfers and accept them moving forward. One of those bargains and risks deals with a limitation on damages and remedies. In a recent dispute dealing with the sale of an aircraft, there was a provision dealing with the buyer and seller’s remedies in the event of a breach. (Similar to a real estate transaction or other

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

---

Second Circuit Revives Policyholder’s Negligence Claim Against Agent

December 08, 2025 — Latosha M. Ellis, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
From insurance agents and wholesalers to risk consultants and policyholders, there are many parties involved in commercial insurance transactions. While each has an important part to play, the policyholder-agent relationship is particularly important to ensure both sides understand their respective roles and obligations when an agent assists in obtaining coverage. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided important guidance under New York law about the scope of an insurance agent’s responsibilities, particularly when an agent, at a policyholder’s request, expressly takes on tasks beyond simply procuring coverage. The decision underscores that an agent’s obligations can extend beyond standard procurement duties by express agreement, though the outcome could differ under the law of another jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@hunton.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages

March 17, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages. The Nabors Case In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Employer’s Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

November 18, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court held the policy’s Employer’s Liability Exclusion precluded coverage for the injured individual who was deemed to be an employee of the insured. Craft v. Access L.L.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179794 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2025). Charles Craft worked for FL Crane & Sons, Inc.. The general contractor of the project, Lemoine Company, LLC, hired FL Crane to do work on the project. Lemoine rented a crane from Morrow Equipment Company, LLC, and hired a crane operator from Skyhook Ops, LLC. Burlington was Skyhook’s insurer. Craft claimed his left arm was injured while working atop a scaffolding when Skyhook caused the scaffolding system to be pulled apart when operating a crane. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---