Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Chambers USA 2025 Recognizes Four Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

July 01, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Washington, D.C. (June 5, 2025) – Four Lewis Brisbois partners and three Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2025 USA rankings list. Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe was ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas.” Phoenix Partner Gina M. Bartoszek was ranked Band 2 for “Insurance – Arizona.” Washington, D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton was ranked Band 4 for “Environment – District of Columbia.” Additionally, Washington, D.C. & Fort Lauderdale Partner J. Mario Fontes, Jr. was ranked Band 5 for “Corporate/M&A & Private Equity – Florida: South.” Chambers also ranked Lewis Brisbois’ Georgia Insurance Practice Band 2, its Kansas Labor & Employment Practice Band 2, and its Washington, D.C. Environmental Practice Band 4. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Payne & Fears Secures $1.9 Million in Defense Costs for Homebuilder Client in Summary Judgment Win Against Insurer

July 29, 2025 — Payne & Fears LLP
On July 1, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered summary judgment in favor of a national homebuilder against its insurance company, United Specialty Insurance Company (“USIC”), holding that USIC had a duty to fully defend the homebuilder against a construction defect claim involving a residential construction project in Perris, California. USIC issued general liability policies to one of the homebuilders’ subcontractors and the policies named the homebuilder as an additional insured. USIC agreed to defend the homebuilder against the construction defect lawsuit, but refused to reimburse the homebuilder for over $1.9 million in defense fees and costs. USIC argued that it was one of many insurers who owed the homebuilder a defense as an additional insured, and thus it owed only a “share” of the homebuilders’ defense costs. USIC also argued that the homebuilder failed to prove that its defense fees and cost were reasonable and necessary, and that the homebuilder violated the policies’ “voluntary payments” condition by paying defense costs to its chosen defense counsel. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

From Waste to Wealth: Texas Supreme Court Ruling in Cactus Water Defines Produced Water Ownership, Sets Stage for Clarity on Critical Mineral Markets in Texas

July 15, 2025 — Ashleigh Myers, Robert A. James & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, No. 23-0676, resolving a high-stakes dispute over the ownership of produced water--a vexing byproduct of oil and gas production that is increasingly being viewed as a resource rather than waste--and its constituents. The Court held that, unless expressly reserved, a deed or lease conveying oil and gas rights also conveys produced water as part of the mineral estate. The decision not only reinforces the ownership of produced water under Texas oil and gas law, but also offers insight into how emerging practices such as direct lithium extraction (DLE) from produced water might be treated under existing legal frameworks. Background The crux of this case is whether produced water belongs to the surface or mineral estate. Under Texas law, groundwater is owned by the surface owner, irrespective of the minerals contained in the groundwater. Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC v. City of Lubbock, 496 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2016); Robinson v. Robbins Petrol. Corp., 501 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1973). However, certain minerals, including lithium, are part of the mineral estate. COG Operating, an oil and gas operator in the Permian Basin and mineral lessee, brought a declaratory judgment action against Cactus Water Services, a company that had acquired purported rights to produced water through a produced water lease granted by the surface owners, including the right to sell all water “produced from oil and gas wells and formations [on the covered properties].” COG, which had operated the lease and managed the transportation and disposal of produced water for years prior to the Cactus’s lease, argued that it owned the produced water as part of its mineral leasehold rights. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury, Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

ABA’s False Claims in Construction Contracts, 2nd Edition

August 18, 2025 — Michael A. Branca, Patrick J. Greene, Jr. & Abby Bello Salinas - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Michael Branca, Co-Managing Partner of P&A’s Washington D.C. office, Abby Bello Salinas, Associate, and Patrick Greene, Jr., Of Counsel, have co-authored chapters in the American Bar Association (ABA)’s False Claims in Construction Contracts, 2nd Edition book. Patrick co-authored Chapter 3, “Elements of a False Claims Act Violation”. The chapter discusses:

Direct False Claims Act Liability
Fraudulent Inducement Liability
“Reverse” False Claims Liability

Michael and Abby wrote Chapter 12, “Corporate Compliance and Ethics Programs for Construction Enterprises”. The chapter discusses:

What Is “Compliance”?
Why Should Construction Contractors Be Concerned?
Federal Laws That Punish Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Reprinted courtesy of Michael A. Branca, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick J. Greene, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Abby Bello Salinas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Branca may be contacted at mbranca@pecklaw.com Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com Ms. Salinas may be contacted at asalinas@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

Illinois Appellate Court Holds Causation Can be Addressed in Appraisal Process

July 29, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court held that issues of causation can be part of an appraisal process. Xaing Zhoa v. State Farm Fire & Cas., Co., 2025 Ill App. LEXIS 903 (Ill. App. Ct. May 12, 2025). The insured had a homeowners policy with State Farm. A hailstorm damaged the insured's home. State Farm investigated and paid $12,677.94 as an actual value payment. The payment included replacement of gutters, downspouts, and aluminum wraps on certain window frames and trim. The insured felt more was owed and received a second estimate from Encompass Builders who determined that the hail damage was extensive enough to require the replacement of all of the windows in the dwelling, at an estimated cost of $133,817.82. The second estimate also claimed that the scope of the work was extensive enough to require a general contractor and to trigger the inclusion of both overhead and profit in the estimate. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Federal Court Reaffirms Arbitrators’ Role in Consolidation of Separate Arbitrations

August 12, 2025 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent decision from the District of Oregon, the court addressed a growing procedural flashpoint in construction: who decides whether multiple arbitrable claims between different parties should be heard in a single consolidated arbitration proceeding. In Sacramento Drilling, Inc. v. National Casualty Company[1], Sacramento sought to arbitrate claims simultaneously against its general contractor, White Construction, and its builders risk insurer, National Casualty. National objected, insisting that its dispute with Sacramento - arising under a separate insurance policy - should be arbitrated independently and limited to contract claims. National argued that Sacramento’s subcontract-based claims against White should be resolved in a separate proceeding because they involved a different arbitration clause which had different arbitration procedures. The court disagreed with National, emphasizing that questions about how arbitrations are structured - such as consolidation - are procedural matters for the arbitrators to decide, not the courts. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

Lack of Credibility Can Destroy a Claim

August 18, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Lack of credibility can undermine your claim in a HUGE way. That lack of credibility can come from a party or a party’s expert. In Appeal of ECC International Constructors, LLC, ASBCA No. 59586, 2025 WL 1357784 (ASBCA 2025), a contractor’s delay expert was construed to have deliberately omitted a key factual event in his analysis that the contractor previously claimed was a delaying event. This fact was a focus of cross examination during an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ proceeding. This omission was noted and gutted the expert’s credibility to the Board:

To demonstrate that the government delayed project performance, [the contractor] relies primarily upon the opinion of [the expert]. To be credible, a contractor’s delay analyst must take into account, and give appropriate credit for, all of the delays that were alleged to have occurred. We have found that the expert] deliberately omitted from the crux of his delay analysis the ECP security changes that - until we ruled against [the contractor] upon that issue - [the contractor] had alleged delayed its performance. That is, [the expert] did not make the ECP security changes the subject of a fragnet, as he did 22 other potential delay events. That renders [the expert’s] opinion not credible, and therefore, not helpful to us or to [the contractor’s] case. We are free to reject expert testimony [that] we find intrinsically unpersuasive . . . and here, we find [the expert’s] opinion intrinsically unpersuasive.

See, supra, Appeal of ECC International Constructors, LLC.

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

Court Resolves Carriers' Dispute Over Which Must Defend

September 15, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court agreed with Travelers that Lloyd's had a duty to defend the underlying personal injury case. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118445 (S.D. N. Y. June 23, 2025). Jerome Avenue owned a multi-tenant property in the Bronx, New York. Jerome Avenue leased one of the units to Pawnit Jerome Corp. (Pawnit). Both Jerome Avenue and Pawnit were sued by Randolph Calosso, who alleged that he tripped and fell on the public sidewalk in front of the leased premises, sustaining serious injuries. Travelers had issued a CGL policy to Jerome Avenue and provided a defense in the underlying case. The Travelers' policy included an "other insurance" provision, stating that coverage was "excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the insured when the insured is an additional insured . . ." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES