Anaheim California Expert Witness Engineer Directory

Insured’s Motion to Compel Production of Underwriting Materials Granted

November 04, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Supreme Court of New York granted the insured’s motion to compel the production of underwriting materials related to identifying additional insureds. Church of St. Andrew v. Western World Ins. Co., 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 5, 2025). The Church of St. Andrew (“church”) retained GC Solutions to perform roofing work at its premises. The church required GC Solutions to name it as an additional insured under its general liability policy. GC Solutions provided a Certificate of Insurance naming the church as an additional insured under the policy issued by Western World. While working on the roof, an employee of GC Solutions fell to his death. A wrongful death action was commenced by the decedent’s estate against the church. The church tendered its defense and indemnification to Western World. Western World disclaimed coverage, asserting that the church did not qualify as an additional insured under the policy. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” 2025 Editions

September 08, 2025 — Wilke Fleury LLP
Wilke Fleury is extremely proud to have seven attorneys recognized in The Best Lawyers in America and eight attorneys recognized in the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America! Best Lawyers has been regarded by lawyers and the public for more than 40 years as the most credible measure of legal integrity and distinction in the United States. Congratulations to this talented group! Best Lawyers:

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

Choose the Right Option: How Facilitative and Evaluative Approaches Can Both Have a Role in Mediation

July 08, 2025 — Barry L. Howard - The Dispute Resolver
There are various mediation styles or philosophies that parties to litigation encounter when mediating. Generally, they can be categorized as either facilitative or evaluative approaches. Some mediators feel that they should never “evaluate” a case, such as the mediator who says, “a mediator should never express a personal opinion”. A similar approach is the mediator who only carries messages or talking points from one party to another without weighing in the validity of the issues. On the other hand, I have also encountered mediators who appear to have decided prior to the actual mediation session, usually based on their review of the pre-mediation statements, how the case should be resolved. They then spend the mediation attempting to persuade both sides to accept their view of the outcome. There are also mediators that will make statements like, “if you were my mother, I would tell you to accept this offer” when getting to the final offers. These types of mediators may be overstepping an “evaluative” approach to mediation. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Barry L. Howard, Miles Mediation & Arbitration

(Don’t) Go Fish

May 12, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana faced significant discovery challenges in a complex trade secrets dispute initiated by a general contractor against several defendants, including former employees of the general contractor. The contractor alleged that defendants misappropriated confidential customer lists, pricing strategies, and business plans in order to unfairly compete against the contractor. The contractor sought and was granted immediate injunctive relief, and, as the case progressed, the court implemented a protective order and a forensic protocol to manage the exchange and examination of the alleged misappropriated information. Despite these measures, discovery quickly became contentious. One critical ruling on a motion to compel involved defendants’ suggestions that the contractor had not adequately protected trade secrets -- and defendants’ request for information from the contractor on the topic. The court found no substantial evidence of improper disclosures and ruled that requiring a contractor to review all its documents for potential external disclosures was disproportionate – without tangible evidence of such actions (the court emphasizing the necessity of specificity in discovery requests to avoid undue burdens). In connection therewith, the court also examined the contractor’s efforts to protect its trade secrets, which the court found adequate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Court Rules That ERISA Preemption Bars Recovery of Union Benefit Fund Payments Pursuant to New York’s Wage Theft Statute from a General Contractor Where a Subcontractor Failed to Fund Payments

June 02, 2025 — Aaron C. Schlesinger - ConsensusDocs
Summary In 2022 the State of New York passed a Wage Theft statute[1] that includes authorizing suits against contractors to recover the unpaid employee wages and benefits of their subcontractors. In 2023 a union benefit fund sued a general contractor under the Wage Theft statute in New York State, seeking payment of nearly three million dollars resulting from the subcontractor’s failure to remit benefit fund contributions pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement.[2] On April 29, 2025, a United States District Court ruled that the Wage Theft Law cannot authorize such a suit. Following the arguments raised on behalf of the general contractor, the court concluded that such claims are the subject of federal law and therefore cannot be controlled by a state statute. The suit by the benefit fund was therefore dismissed against the contractor. More specifically, the court held that ERISA (the Early Retirement Income Security Act) preempts New York’s Construction Industry Wage Theft Statute (New York Labor Law § 198-e). In other words, where both federal and state law address an issue, federal law prevails, or “preempts,” the state law from operating. In this case, ERISA barred a union benefit fund from seeking payment from a general contractor for the delinquent benefit fund contributions owed by a subcontractor pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com

The 2025 Legal Horizon for U.S. Offshore Wind

September 30, 2025 — Robert A. James, Matthew W. Morrison, Stephen J. Humes, Cara M. MacDonald & Sophia Marchesotti - Gravel2Gavel
In its first nine months, the Trump administration has taken multiple actions impacting offshore wind development and generating substantial uncertainty as to the industry’s future in the United States. Those actions have placed future projects on the defensive across multiple fronts. In response, some states and project proponents have instituted plans to try to protect existing and planned projects and encourage opportunities in welcoming jurisdictions. This article recaps the extraordinary activity in this energy sector in 2025. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Matthew W. Morrison, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Cara M. MacDonald, Pillsbury and Sophia Marchesotti, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Morrison may be contacted at matthew.morrison@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. MacDonald may be contacted at cara.macdonald@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

Los Angeles Office Secures Summary Judgment for Electric Company Client in Asbestos Lawsuit

August 18, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Los Angeles, Calif. (July 22, 2025) - Los Angeles Partner Rod Cappy recently obtained summary judgment for his electric company client in a lawsuit brought by an electrician who claimed he developed mesothelioma in part due to exposure to asbestos-containing products distributed by the client. The plaintiff filed his lawsuit in October 2024, alleging that he developed mesothelioma due to occupational exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products sold by a slew of companies during his career as an electrician, first in the U.S. Navy from 1964-1967 and then in private industry from 1967-2001. He claimed that he was exposed to asbestos-containing electronic products distributed by Lewis Brisbois’ client to two of his employers. The plaintiff’s demand as to the client was in the mid-six figures. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

General Commercial Liability Coverage Depends on Facts - Not Labels

October 27, 2025 — Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Twiggs hired Rainier Pacific Development, LLC to build a home. But, after the home was complete, the Twiggs complained the concrete garage slab was sloped toward the house and cracked.[1] The Twiggs and Rainier agreed to a “Repair Agreement” (in other words, a contract) that obligated Rainier to repair the slab by applying a thin concrete overlay.[2] The Twiggs alleged the repairs were defective and proceeded to arbitration. In arbitration, the Twiggs made a claim for breach of contract by alleging Rainier had breached the Repair Agreement.[3] The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Twiggs, and a trial court entered judgment against Rainier. When the Twiggs’ efforts to collect on the judgment were unsuccessful, the Twiggs sued Rainier’s commercial general liability insurer, Admiral Insurance Group.[4] Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES