LACYGNE KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

August 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com

---

Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners

July 27, 2026 — Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & Wilmer
On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024. Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

---

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

---

EPA Expands PFAS Reporting Requirements with Addition of New Chemical to Toxics Release Inventory, Published by Law360

June 08, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) addition of sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) introduces new federal reporting requirements for businesses that manufacture, process, or use the chemical. Because reporting obligations apply retroactively to the start of the year, affected facilities must quickly evaluate their compliance and recordkeeping practices. In a recent Law360 article, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, explains why PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI, how the EPA’s public reporting system works, and which businesses may be affected by the new rule. The article also touches upon key compliance considerations, including supply chain reviews, reporting thresholds for chemicals of special concern, and preparation for public disclosure requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

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

---

Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Earns Prestigious Band One Ranking in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide

June 22, 2026 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group is pleased to share that it has received a Band One ranking in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide for Insurance, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Patricia B. Santelle, Chair Emeritus, Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Robert Walsh, Partner have all been individually ranked on the Chambers USA 2026 Guide in Insurance in Pennsylvania. The Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice's consistent focus on their clients and handling of complex claims were just two of the attributes contributing to their elite Band One ranking, after 11 years on the Chambers USA list. When asked about their experience working with White and Williams’ Pennsylvania Insurance Practice, one client stated, “What distinguishes White and Williams is the high level of service and accountability. The team is responsive, organized and reliable, which allows our internal teams to move quickly and make informed decisions with confidence.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Generic Complaint Alleging Bad Faith is Insufficient

August 24, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after determining that the insured’s claims for bad faith and unfair claims settlement practices were insufficiently pled. Navia v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111261 (W.D. N. C. May 20, 2026). The insured submitted a claim for damages to real property owned by the insured allegedly caused by Hurricane Helene. State Farm advised the insured that only some of the claimed damages were covered by the policy and payment for such damages were denied because the estimate for the covered damages did not exceed the policy’s deductible. The insured sued asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair claim settlement practices. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---