Segal McCambridge Shareholders and Associates Recognized in 2027 Best Lawyers in America®
September 01, 2026 —
Segal McCambridgeSegal McCambridge is pleased to announce that 24 firm shareholders and associates have been recognized in the 2027 editions of the Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through a trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For more than four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion.
"This Best Lawyers recognition is especially meaningful because it reflects the caliber of advocacy our attorneys bring to clients every day, across a wide range of practice areas," said Jason P. Eckerly, Segal McCambridge Managing Shareholder. "We are proud to see so many of our colleagues honored for their legal skills, dedication, and professionalism. This continued recognition underscores the strength of our national platform and the depth of talent across our firm."
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers in America® include:
Jason P. Eckerly; Chicago, IL; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Scott R. Emery; New York, NY; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Jay Evans; Pittsburgh, PA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Richard H. Glucksman; Los Angeles, CA; Construction Law
Nathan R. Horne; Austin, TX; Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Alice Sacks Johnston; Pittsburgh, PA; Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Patrick M. Kemp; Austin, TX; Litigation - Insurance
Mitchell P. Morinec; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Anthony J. Sbarra, Jr.; Milton, MA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Alan J. Taylor; Southfield, MI; Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
Kenneth P. Williams; Southfield, MI; Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David J. Yates; Southfield, MI; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® include:
Masood Syed Ali; Chicago, IL; Labor and Employment Law - Management
Mari Bryn Dowdy; Austin, TX; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Chaniece M. Hill; Chicago, IL; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Mandy Kolodkin; Indianapolis, IN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Jeffrey M. Marchese; New York, NY; Litigation - Construction
Courtney C. McLaren; Memphis, TN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Benjamin J. Nellans; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Christopher P. Norton; Los Angeles, CA; Commercial Litigation
Nelson T. Rainey; Memphis, TN; Family Law; Health Care Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Nicholas E. Richardson; Tampa, FL; Insurance Law
Jordan B. Rosenberg; Philadelphia, PA; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Ian M. Sadler; Austin, TX; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law
About Best Lawyers®
Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For over four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. Each year, millions of confidential evaluations are collected worldwide, contributing to one of the legal industry's most rigorous and trusted vetting processes. Only about 5% of lawyers in the United States and 3% globally are recognized, reflecting the selectivity and credibility of the results. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion, maintaining the integrity and independence of all recognitions. For more information, visit: www.bestlawyers.com.
About Segal McCambridge
Segal McCambridge has built a reputation as a national law firm of accomplished trial attorneys for almost four decades. Founded in 1986, the firm has grown from a four-lawyer shop in Chicago to a firm with more than 20 offices nationwide. The firm routinely counsels and defends clients, including Fortune 500 companies, corporations, and individuals, across the United States in complex litigation matters including, but not limited to: asbestos, class action, construction, employment, environmental, food and beverage, insurance coverage and bad faith, life sciences, product liability, professional liability, technology and cyber risk, transportation, and warranty. For more information, visit: www.segalmccambridge.com.
New York Moves to Tighten Third-Party Practice: Key Changes to CPLR 1007
March 31, 2026 —
Sophia L. Cahill - SheppardEffective April 18, 2026, the New York Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act, amending CPLR 1007—the statute that governs third-party practice. The amendment sharply limits when and how defendants can commence third-party actions, curbing the expansive discretion they previously enjoyed and targeting the late-stage impleaders that often upend case schedules.
What Changes
Before the AVOID Act was signed into law on December 19, 2025 (and subsequently modified by Chapter Amendments A9502 and S8809, signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026[1]), CPLR 1007 gave defendants broad latitude to implead “any person who is or may be liable” for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. CPLR 1007 specified no outside time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim; courts assessed only whether a defendant’s delay was undue—such as impleading months after the note of issue—and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the third-party action were not severed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sophia L. Cahill, SheppardMs. Cahill may be contacted at
scahill@sheppard.com
New Survey Reveals Overwhelmingly Optimistic Results on the Use of AI in Construction
May 14, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveOn December 5, 2025,
CMiC and
Dodge released a
survey asking over 6,000 companies across various sectors of the construction industry their stance on artificial intelligence—whether they use it or not; whether they like it or not; whether they have or are planning to implement it or not; and so on. Considering its reputation for skepticism and reluctance when it comes to adopting new forms of technology, the construction industry pleasantly surprised CMiC and Dodge with its answers to these questions, with 87% of contractors believing AI will have a meaningful impact on construction.
“The research indicates the construction industry is nearing a tipping point for AI adoption,” says Steve Jones, senior director of industry insights at Dodge Construction Network, who sat down with Construction Executive to delve further into the survey questions and answers and what the industry’s current position on them means for AI’s future role in construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act
June 15, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMost, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees.
But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits
May 12, 2026 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn the case of
County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.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
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
Flatiron Said Disputed Concrete Mix Cost Millions on Large Caltrans Project
June 22, 2026 —
Elaine Silver & Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordFor awhile in 2023, part of the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Fix 50 HOV lane and resurfacing project in Sacramento itself needed to be fixed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record and
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story...
