The Firm Turns 16!
July 20, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have always found it appropriate that my jump to solo practice and Independence Day are so close in time. Today marks the 16th anniversary of
my first day as a solo practitioner of construction law at
The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Time sure has flown by thanks to the great clients and friends who followed me to solo practice and whom I have met since the firm’s founding on July 1, 2010. I also could not have made the transition and had the fun and success I have enjoyed over the past 16 years without the support of the best wife and family that any construction lawyer could want.
Since the firm’s last anniversary, my youngest child (who was 7 when this journey began!) has graduated from N. C. State University with a fisheries and wildlife biology degree and is currently in Casper, Wyoming working for
Wyoming Game & Fish, my second oldest is an assistant director of admissions at
Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, and has celebrated his second wedding anniversary, and my oldest has celebrated her fifth marriage anniversary. Our home in Captiva, Florida continues its recovery from from Hurricane Ian and subsequent hurricanes.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
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
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
AIA Waivers Under Fire: Why Post-Completion Losses May Still Be Actionable
January 26, 2026 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistOn its face, the power of a waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract is profound. It bars otherwise actionable – and sometimes egregious – losses resulting from contractor carelessness before they can ever get started. One question courts have long battled with is the limits to the lasting effects of such a waiver. Whether the waiver power can be transferred amongst parties, applied to third parties or used with policies taken out after construction completion are among the few grey areas that have kept subrogation practitioners and the courts busy. Recently, a federal court in Idaho clarified its position on the power to waive subrogation.
In Seneca Ins. Co. v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00340-BLW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251777 (D. Idaho), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) addressed whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract, signed between an owner and the general contractor, applied to the subsequent owner of a building. In doing so, the court looked at the limiting language of the waiver as well as the contractual posture of the subsequent owner. Ultimately, the court found the waiver inapplicable, denying the motion for summary judgment of Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff McAlvain Construction, Inc. (McAlvain).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and WilliamsMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Indiana District Court Finds Crane Inspection Services Do Not Trigger “Professional Services” Exclusion in Liability Policy
February 17, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Crane 1 Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Continental Ins. Co., 23-cv-205 (N.D. Ind. Jan 12, 2026), the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana had occasion to interpret the scope and meaning of the term “professional services” in an excess liability policy exclusion. By way of background, Robert Coppage was crushed by a crane while at work. He was seriously injured and later received a significant settlement in a state court civil action against the company that inspected the crane, Crane1. Crane1 sought coverage for the settlement under a first layer excess policy issued by Continental Insurance Company, which included an exclusion for any “liability arising out of the actual or alleged rendering of, or failure to render, any professional services by the Insured or any other person for whose acts the Insured is legally responsible.” The underlying complaint alleged that Crane1 was negligent in its modification, services, maintenance, inspection, and/or repair of the crane.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Samuel Alhadeff Represents LGI Homes in Acquisition and Re-Entitlement of Maravilla Estates
July 06, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisTemecula Partner Samuel Alhadeff recently represented LGI Homes in its acquisition and re-entitlement of Maravilla Estates, a 169-lot active adult community located in San Jacinto, California.
The acquisition and re-entitlement of the project provide LGI Homes with the opportunity to deliver much-needed age-qualified housing in one of Riverside County's growing residential markets. The community includes a recorded final map and finished lots, as well as future development inventory and planned amenities, positioning the project for continued development and completion.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Kahana Feld Obtains Favorable Result in High-Exposure NY Premises Liability Case
June 15, 2026 —
Leigh Katz - Kahana FeldKahana Feld partner Leigh Katz obtained a significant victory in a recent matter involving a videotaped alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of the client’s commercial residence. The plaintiff claimed he suffered a knee injury that necessitated surgery, along with other assorted injuries that prevented him from continuing high-level athletic activities. Leigh was able to demonstrate that the fall was staged and received a voluntary discontinuance with prejudice.
At mediation, Leigh emphasized that KF’s expert witness challenged the plaintiff’s claim that the fall was caused by a sidewalk height differential after reviewing the videotape footage and determining the plaintiff’s fall began before his feet made contact with the alleged defect. Based on this analysis, the expert concluded the reported height differential did not initiate the fall, which supported KF’s position that the incident depicted in the video was unrealistic and appeared staged.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Leigh Katz, Kahana FeldMs. Katz may be contacted at
lkatz@kahanafeld.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & WilmerA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).
KEY HOLDINGS
1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer,
Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and
Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com
Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
