Buffalo Kansas Construction Expert Witness Directory

The Great Escape: Non-Invalidation Clauses and Property Damage Claims

October 20, 2026 — Abigail Smith & Kaarthiga Manimaran - SDV Fenchurch
At their core, non-invalidation clauses (“NICs”) recognise an important commercial reality: an insured cannot control everything that happens at its premises. In the event that an insured finds itself in breach of a condition or warranty owing to events that have increased the risk of damage to its property, but which were outside its authority, knowledge or beyond its control, a NIC may prevent the insurer from avoiding the claim. For that reason, they’re an important tool in an insured’s coverage arsenal. Although there is relatively little caselaw on NICs, their purpose was recognised in The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2011] EWHC 1761 (Comm) (on which we wrote a previous article – The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #26 The Good: The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd v Aviva) Reprinted courtesy of Abigail Smith, SDV Fenchurch and Kaarthiga Manimaran, SDV Fenchurch Ms. Smith may be contacted at abigail.smith@sdvfenchurch.uk Ms. Manimaran may be contacted at kaarthiga.manimaran@sdvfenchurch.uk Read the full story...

GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case

September 15, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

May 14, 2026 — Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis Brisbois
Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

Insured is Third Party Beneficiary of Forced-Place Policy

October 26, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s fire damage claims under a forced-place policy because the insured was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. Fredericks v. Assurant Specialty, et al., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2026). The insureds’ home burned down on the same day their homeowner’s policy expired. The expiration automatically triggered a forced-placed policy issued by American Security Insurance Company (ASIC) to the insureds’ mortgage company, Rocket Mortgage Company, LLC. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor

May 14, 2026 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The 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

Understanding the EPA’s Latest Proposed Drinking Water Contaminant Monitoring Rule, Published in Law360

September 01, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) represents another step in the federal government’s ongoing effort to identify and evaluate emerging contaminants in drinking water. The proposal would require certain public water systems to monitor and report on 30 unregulated drinking water contaminants from 2028 through 2030, while generating occurrence data that could inform future regulation and affect environmental, commercial, litigation and risk assessments. In an article published by Law360, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, analyzes the scope and practical implications of UCMR 6, including the contaminants selected, the proposed monitoring requirements for public water systems, and the EPA’s continued focus on PFAS and related organofluorine compounds. The article also touches upon the potential significance of publicly available monitoring data for businesses and property stakeholders. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

August 16, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense. But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence. Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Contractor Dispute Resolution Framework and Prevention

July 06, 2026 — Construction Executive
WHAT DEFINES A CONTRACTOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK A contractor dispute resolution framework is a structured system of contractual terms, governance processes and escalation pathways designed to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts between contracting parties with minimal disruption to cost, schedule and performance. The framework operates as both a preventive control and a corrective mechanism. Preventive elements establish clarity in scope, expectations and accountability before work begins. Corrective elements define how disagreements are identified, documented, escalated and resolved once they arise. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

BUFFALO KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES