ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

August 16, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense. But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence. Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

AI Adoption in Construction: A UK Practitioner’s View

April 20, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I recently talked with Chris Brady, an AI adoption consultant based in Birmingham, UK, who has spent 18 years working in construction. Two years ago, he began integrating AI into his work with contractors and SMEs, initially as an add-on service, and it has since become his main business. Chris now runs Metrix, an AI consultancy focused on UK construction companies, alongside two other ventures: Trade Upskill, an education platform for construction professionals, and ctrldash.ai, a compliance-automation SaaS for construction SMEs, both of which are soon to launch. What struck me most in our conversation was how grounded his approach is, built on years of direct industry experience rather than arriving from outside with a technology solution looking for a problem. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

GRSM Team Obtains Defense Verdict for Homeowners’ Association in Orange County Superior Court

July 20, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
A Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani multi-state team, including Partners Christine Barker, Sean Ferron, and Keith Cramer, obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a homeowners’ association (HOA) in an Orange County Superior Court bench trial spanning two months. The case began in 2022 when a homeowner sued after the Architectural Review Committee and HOA Board of Directors declined his teardown-and-rebuild plans due to view and aesthetic concerns. After a motion for summary judgment ruling in which the court found that the existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) did not protect views, the HOA held a special election to add explicit view protections to the CC&Rs. At the February 2025 trial call, the plaintiff sought leave to file a third amended complaint challenging the validity of that vote, drastically reframing the case from CC&R enforcement to one of election validity. A second plaintiff then filed a parallel action toward the end of the limitations period, and the two cases were consolidated. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Wind Damage

June 29, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that a six-month delay in reporting damage from wind did not comply with the policy’s notice requirements. Touchmark Hotel Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61910 (S.D. N. Y. March 24, 2026). A storm caused damage to Touchstone’s hotel on January 4, 2023. Touchstone’s corporate representative, Rohit Patel, testified that he was not at the property on the day of the storm. In a telephone call the next day, the manager of the property reported to Patel that he observed detached shingles from the roof the hotel in the parking lot. Patel testified that he did not file a claim at that time because Touchmark’s employees did not detect any water leakage in the building and because he did not believe that the cost of the damage from the storm would exceed the policy’s deductible. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Pursuing Claims for Loss Caused by Recent Kona Low Storms for Homeowners and Businesses

May 12, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The recent Kona Low storms that hit all islands were devastating, causing significant property damage. Homeowners and businesses will be seeking coverage under their insurance policies to recover for their losses. Here is a brief look at what may be covered and which exclusions may be troublesome in homeowners’ and commercial property policies. Typically, both a homeowners’ policy and a commercial property policy include a grant of coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property.” Covered perils are listed, including such events as fire, lightning, or windstorm. Covered Property includes dwellings, other structures on the property and personal property. Additional coverages are usually provided. This includes debris removal after a peril insured against or collapse of a structure. In a homeowners’ policy, additional living expenses are likely covered when the damaged home is not fit to live in. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

The AI Knows Too Much: When Employees Feed Trade Secrets into Generative AI Tools

April 14, 2026 — Kazim A. Naqvi & John V. Mysliwiec - Sheppard
Every time an employee pastes proprietary source code, a customer list, or a confidential business strategy into ChatGPT, Claude, or Google Gemini, they may be quietly dismantling the legal protections that make those secrets worth protecting. Courts and regulators are only beginning to grapple with this problem, and right now, the burden of preventing it falls squarely on employers. The Legal Stakes Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) as adopted across most states, a trade secret plaintiff must show that the information at issue was subject to reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy. Courts have historically credited measures like confidentiality agreements, physical access controls, and employee training—but those safeguards were designed for a world of thumb drives and disgruntled employees. They were not built for a world where a well-meaning engineer can, in seconds, transmit an entire corpus of proprietary data to a third-party AI platform operating under terms of service that may permit the provider to use inputs for model training. Reprinted courtesy of Kazim A. Naqvi, Sheppard and John V. Mysliwiec, Sheppard Mr. Naqvi may be contacted at knaqvi@sheppard.com Mr. Mysliwiec may be contacted at jmysliwiec@sheppard.com Read the full story...

---