GRAND RIVERS KENTUCKY CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

May 05, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In 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 Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Cross-Office Team Secures Litigation Stay and Order of Arbitration on Behalf of Hotel Developer

February 17, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York Partner Minyao Wang, Chicago Partner Bryan Sugar, and Denver/Washington, D.C. Partner Christopher Wood secured a victory on behalf of Lewis Brisbois’ client, a hotel developer, when the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted the client’s motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. In this matter, the 39 plaintiffs, represented by a New York based law firm that focuses on EB-5 litigation against high-end real estate developers, were foreign nationals living in China or Taiwan who were seeking EB-5 visas and invested in a lending company. The lending company loaned money to entities that were managing a project that involved renovating a hotel and constructing a mixed-use tower in downtown Chicago. Disputes developed among the parties. The foreign investors organized informally and ultimately filed suit against Lewis Brisbois’ client, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion, and conspiracy, as well as aiding and abetting conversion. The defendants faced exposure of at least $20 million. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

June 15, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Most, 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 Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment

June 08, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on the insured’s bad faith claim, but granted the motion on the insured’s claim for punitive damages. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58234 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2026). On February 1, 2023, the Church filed a claim for water damage with Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC). The claim was based on rain and wind that caused extensive water intrusion into the Sanctuary, damaging its plaster walls and ceilings and fresco paintings. The claim was assigned to Patrick Hurley. Hurley sent a letter discussing potential bars to coverage and requesting further information and documents from the Church. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Traub Lieberman Recognized in the 2026 Edition of Chambers USA

June 29, 2026 — Traub Lieberman
In the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, Traub Lieberman has been awarded rankings in the following categories: Illinois – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer In the Chambers research, clients noted: "The team are technically very strong, responsive, and on top of their cases." Florida – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer In the Chambers research, clients noted: "Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry distinguishes itself through a combination of deep subject-matter expertise, responsiveness, and practical risk-management orientation." Commenters went on to say: “The team has deep knowledge of Florida property insurance statutes, regulations and case law, enabling effective handling of disputes, appeals and third-party litigation." Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

---

Newark Team Obtains Appellate Ruling Affirming Summary Judgment for Lawyer and Firm in Professional Negligence Lawsuit

April 14, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Newark 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

---

Massachusetts Settlement Targets Mortgage-Backed “Homeowner Benefit” Agreements

April 08, 2026 — A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Mehul N. Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas - Sheppard
On March 11, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a consent order with a real estate-related lender’s subsidiary, and affiliated individuals resolving allegations that the company violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by deceptively marketing mortgage-backed “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” to financially struggling homeowners. According to the complaint, the company offered homeowners relatively small upfront cash payments, typically less than $1,500, in exchange for a 40-year exclusive right to act as the listing broker if the homeowner later sold the property. The Attorney General alleged that the agreements also triggered substantial payment obligations upon other transfers, including death or foreclosure, and that the transactions were secured by recorded mortgages that could interfere with refinancing, home-equity access, or the ability to sell the home. The complaint further alleged that the company marketed the product to vulnerable consumers searching for loans or public benefits while obscuring the true nature of the transaction. Reprinted courtesy of A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Sheppard, Mehul N. Madia, Sheppard and Maxwell Earp-Thomas, Sheppard Mr. Dhaliwal may be contacted at adhaliwal@sheppard.com Mr. Madia may be contacted at mmadia@sheppard.com Mr. Earp-Thomas may be contacted at mearp-thomas@sheppard.com Read the full story...

---

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 Blog
In 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 Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---