Scope of Products Requiring Proposition 65 Warnings in California Poised to Grow
February 23, 2026 —
Brian M. Ledger & Chassen B. Palmer - Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniThe scope of products to be drawn into the warning requirements under California’s Proposition 65 law may soon be growing. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requested information from the public on the reproductive toxicity of p,p’-bisphenol chemicals. OEHHA is the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition 65, formerly known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxicity Enforcement Act of 1986. OEHHA’s request for information is a step toward regulators classifying all p,p’-bisphenol chemicals as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65.
California’s Proposition 65
Under Proposition 65, businesses are required to post clear and reasonable warnings before individuals are exposed to chemicals listed by the state of California as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. To date, California has listed approximately 900 chemicals that fall under Proposition 65 regulation. Businesses may be held liable for up to $2,500 per violation per day. Proposition 65 can be enforced by public prosecutors (e.g., the California attorney general or district attorneys) or by private enforcers (known as “bounty hunters”).
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian M. Ledger, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and
Chassen B. Palmer, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Ledger may be contacted at bledger@grsm.com
Mr. Palmer may be contacted at cbpalmer@grsm.com
Read the full story...
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor
May 14, 2026 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Fourth Circuit in APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 24-1969, 2026 WL 458402 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) recently endorsed broad coverage for additional insureds, interpreting “arising out of” broadly under North Carolina law to extend coverage to a repaving company under its subcontractor’s liability insurance policy. The court held that an additional insured’s liability “arising out of” a named insured’s work in an additional-insured endorsement means liability “relating to” or “causally connected to” the named insured’s operations, rather than liability defined more narrowly as “caused by” or “the fault of” the named insured.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute
May 05, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured.
The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured:
This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle
July 13, 2026 —
Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026.
Key Takeaways
Act 932:
- Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
- Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
- Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Attorneys Named Finalists in 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
March 10, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been shortlisted as finalists for Corporate Counsel’s 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) Awards, which honor women leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing the empowerment of women in the legal profession.
In the Law Firm Internal Collaborative Leadership category, Stephanie Jones was recognized for her exceptional ability to foster collaboration, mentor talent, and align colleagues across GRSM. Jones has consistently demonstrated leadership rooted in trust, inclusion, and shared purpose, qualities that have strengthened the firm during a period of extraordinary growth. Her impact on the firm’s culture and success will continue as she steps into her role as Chief Operating Partner in June 2026, where she will further build on her leadership in fostering teamwork, mentorship, and alignment across the firm’s national platform.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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
PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Proposal—Fast-Track Capacity to Meet Rising Large-Load Demand
May 12, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight, Jason Drogin Atwood & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2GavelIn January, we discussed the Statement of Principles jointly signed by the National Energy Dominance Council and governors across the mid-Atlantic region—framing accelerating demand (especially from large-scale data centers) as an emergency reliability issue for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the nation’s largest power grid operator. That policy signal is now becoming a near-term, accelerated procurement and contracting exercise. On April 8, 2026, PJM notified stakeholders of a critical issue fast path reliability backstop procurement process. PJM subsequently released a request for information (RFI) with respect to a proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP)—a one-time mechanism intended to attract significant new capacity to address projected reliability shortfalls driven by large-load growth.
RBP compresses what is often a multiyear market and regulatory conversation into a fast-moving set of commercial choices. Developers, large loads, utilities and capital providers should be preparing now for (i) an accelerated bilateral contracting window and (ii) a standardized PJM-led backstop procurement if bilateral deals do not clear enough capacity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury and
Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
