Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke Win Final Summary Judgment on Behalf of Homeowner’s Insurance Company
November 02, 2026 —
Ryan S. Parker, Robert Biferie & Matthew Groteke - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke won final summary judgment on behalf of their client, a homeowner’s insurance company. The case related to a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Milton, which was reported more than ten months after the date of loss. The homeowner’s insurance company reviewed historical aerial photography of the roof and determined that there was no evidence of damage immediately after the Hurricane, which was inconsistent with the condition of the roof when it was inspected more than ten months later. Additionally, the homeowner’s insurance company was unable to determine when the interior water damage occurred due to the delay in reporting the claim. After a lawsuit was filed, the Traub Lieberman team took depositions of the Plaintiffs and the opposing expert and eventually filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the failure to timely report the claim and resulting prejudice to their client. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that notice of the claim was untimely as a matter of law and that the Plaintiffs failed to rebut the legal presumption of prejudice to the insurance company. As a result of the ruling, the insurance company has a valid claim for attorney’s fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan S. Parker, Traub Lieberman,
Robert Biferie, Traub Lieberman and
Matthew Groteke, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Parker may be contacted at rparker@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Biferie may be contacted at rbiferie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Groteke may be contacted at mgroteke@tlsslaw.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Team Obtains Defense Verdict for Homeowners’ Association in Orange County Superior Court
July 20, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniA 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
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim Denied
November 02, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but granted the motion to dismiss the claim for declaratory judgment. Jimenez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182079 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2026).
The insured owned a two-family property which was insured by State Farm. After a fire damaged the property, the insured submitted a claim to State Farm. The policy provided for Fair Rental Value coverage “[w]hen a loss insured causes that part of the residence premises rented to others or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable.”
Before the fire, the insured alleged that he rented part of the property under an oral lease agreement. In support of his claim for Fair Rental Value, the insured alleged that he provided State Farm with bank deposit receipts demonstrating that he collected rent in cash. The insured further alleged that his rental ledger was destroyed in the fire.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Sausage-Making Often Relies on the Good Sense of the Chef Rather than the Recipe
June 23, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogEven for lawyers, the rules governing litigation can get complex and convoluted. Does something need to be filed? What needs to be filed? When is the deadline for filing?
Simple questions with not always with straightforward answers.
This was the case in
R & J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co. of California, 111 Cal.App.5th 878 (2025), which involved sheet metal panels lost when they fell into the Port of Long Beach harbor.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Location, Location, Location — But Which One? The Few Words in Your Construction Contract that Pick Where You Fight
June 29, 2026 —
Brad Sands - ConsensusDocsMost professionals know the old real estate line: location, location, location. It turns out to be just as true for construction contracts as it is for property.
Consider a recent case involving a project owner that hired two design firms for a project. When issues arose during construction, the owner sued the design firms in state court in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The defendants then removed the case to the federal district court in Galveston, a courthouse in a different county. But the owner wanted the case back in Brazoria County state court. Whether it got its wish came down to two words in the contract: “situated in.” This article is about words like those.
A construction contract’s forum selection clause names the place for the fight nobody plans to have, and where that fight happens can shape how it goes. This article explains why the wording in your forum selection clause deserves careful reading before you sign a construction contract. It is not a deep dive into the mechanics of federal removal jurisdiction, and it is not an academic comparison of the terms “forum” and “venue.” Instead, it is a practical look at how courts actually read these clauses, so the location of a future fight is the one you intended.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brad Sands, Jones Walker, LLPMr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins
May 12, 2026 —
Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLPThree weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins.
White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and
Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
