Louisiana Enacts Important Tort Reform Legislation
May 12, 2026 —
Lee M. Peacocke & Benjamin Perkins - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana legislature enacted tort reform legislation in 2025 to address the increasing cost of insurance in Louisiana and to provide some predictability to the Louisiana legal system. While our colleagues, Jenny Michel and Jennifer Kretschmann, have provided an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the legislation in their article entitled “Louisiana State Legislature 2025 Regular Session: Tort Reform - Acts & Vetoed Insurance Bill,” which can be found
here, this article examines the anticipated impact of the tort reform legislation on personal injury trials in federal and state courts in Louisiana.
The most significant reform involves the institution of a modified defense of contributory negligence, which went into effect on January 1, 2026. Since 1996, Louisiana had operated as a pure comparative fault state; the liability of each party whose fault caused damages was to be allocated among the respective parties based upon their appropriate percentage of fault, regardless of the legal theory of liability asserted against each party. Thus, a plaintiff 55 percent at fault could recover 45 percent of their damages from the liable defendants. The 2025 Tort Reform Amendments now prohibit a plaintiff in a personal injury action from recovering any damages if they are found to be 51 percent or more at fault for their damages. The 55 percent at-fault party in the example above is now prohibited from recovering any damages from any party. Importantly, this new legislation now requires the trial court to instruct the jury that if they find a plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault, then the plaintiff will not recover any damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lee M. Peacocke, Lewis Brisbois and
Benjamin Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Peacocke may be contacted at Lee.Peacocke@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Perkins may be contacted at Benjamin.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
World's Longest Immersed Tunnel Passes Milestone, But Faces Delays
August 03, 2026 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordWork on the $8-billion Fehmarnbelt Tunnel, which is planned to link Germany and Denmark as the world’s longest immersed tunnel, is progressing as crews achieved a milestone last month with the successful immersion of its first precast concrete element. But Danish state-owned project owner Femern A/S says the plan is now running at least two years behind schedule and the tunnel’s road and rail portions will open in two separate stages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-RecordMr. Leggate may be contacted at
leggatej@enr.com
The Construction Defect Litigation Podcast: Navigating Multi-Party Construction Defect Litigation
September 08, 2026 —
Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana FeldKahana Feld Construction Defect Practice Group Chair Ivette Kincaid and attorney Thomas McCarrick recently joined the Construction Defect Litigation podcast to discuss the challenges—and strategies—behind complex construction defect matters involving multiple stakeholders.
Drawing on their experience, Ivette and Thomas explore practical approaches to:
- Identifying key parties and understanding how claims and crossclaims develop
- Working with experts to evaluate defects, causation and damages
- Managing procedural challenges, including scheduling, document management and depositions
- Applying thoughtful case management strategies to position complex matters for successful resolution
Reprinted courtesy of
Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and
Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld
Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com
Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com
Read the full story...
The Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas Explosion
March 24, 2026 —
Kyle A. Rudolph & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In a recent Seventh Circuit decision, Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Navigators Insurance Company, the court addressed a theme that policyholders are often confronted with by insurers
[1] – insurers disputing additional insured coverage where the named insured is not named in the underlying action. The court aptly rejected this position since it was undisputed that the bodily injuries alleged in the underlying lawsuits were due to a gas explosion that was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the named insured’s acts or omissions.
I. Background
The additional insureds, Atlanta Gas Light Company and Southern Company Gas (collectively, “AGL”), retained the named insured, United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”), to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned in Georgia. USIC failed to mark a certain gas line, which was later struck by a boring company, leading to an explosion that injured three people.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
Newark Team Obtains Appellate Ruling Affirming Summary Judgment for Lawyer and Firm in Professional Negligence Lawsuit
April 14, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNewark Partner Meredith Kaplan Stoma and Associate Anthony Doss recently secured a decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirming summary judgment for their clients, a lawyer and her firm, in a lawsuit alleging professional negligence in connection with the administration of a commercial loan.
The circumstances giving rise to the lawsuit date back to September 2020, when the plaintiff was approached by members of a real estate investment company regarding a short-term loan opportunity whereby he would loan the company $200,000.
The company provided the plaintiff with a “bridge loan package,” which stated that the requested funds would be held in the escrow account of their counsel and her firm (Lewis Brisbois’ clients), and returned to him with interest within six months once the company was “capitalized” by a senior lender. The company subsequently prepared two notes, each for $100,000, in connection with the agreement.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
One Industry, One Goal: Construction Safety Week 2026
May 05, 2026 —
Maggie Murphy - Construction ExecutiveConstruction safety has long been a top priority across the industry. Yet fatality rates have remained stubbornly flat for more than a decade. Steven Carter, global health and safety director at
Gilbane chair company for
Construction Safety Week 2026—believes the industry has reached a pivotal moment. This year’s theme—”
All In Together: Recognize. Respond. Respect.”—is a unified call to action for owners, designers, contractors and craft professionals around a shared, risk-based approach to preventing serious injuries and fatalities.
In a recent interview with Construction Executive, Carter discusses why the industry must move beyond incremental improvements, how technology and AI can support better planning and what it will take to create a true culture of psychological safety on jobsites.
Reprinted courtesy of
Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
