That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Fraud Allegations Stymie Additional Insured’s Request for a Defense
May 14, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Federal District Court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s complaint seeking a defense of the underlying case alleging fraud. Renovation Realty, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21409 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026).
Mara Fortin sued Renovation Realty and others (“Fortin litigation”) from the fraudulent sale of a residence. The underlying complaint alleged Renovation “deliberately misrepresented of the residence as ‘completely remodeled’ and ‘meticulously maintained’.” The defendants, however, including Renovation, “knew from sources including a pre-renovation termite report documenting fungus and dry rot . . . that the Property harbored pre-existing material defects.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Seattle’s Residential Zoning Transformation: What Property Owners, Buyers, and Investors Should Understand
May 14, 2026 —
Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCSeattle is in the midst of a significant transformation in residential land use policy. Longstanding neighborhood zoning patterns that historically favored detached single-family development are being reexamined in response to housing supply pressures, affordability concerns, and evolving state mandates.
For homeowners, purchasers, investors, and builders, these changes may create substantial new opportunities. They also create a heightened need for careful legal and practical due diligence.
While zoning reform can expand potential uses of property, it does not eliminate the many other constraints that may still govern what can actually be built.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Glosser may be contacted at
larry.glosser@acslawyers.com
U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment
June 15, 2026 —
Jennifer Kretschmann & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case,
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities.
The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.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 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
Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide
May 26, 2026 —
Newmeyer DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County.
Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial.
Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion
A Green Light for Housing? What Executive Order 14394 Means for Your Next Project
May 26, 2026 —
Bennett Houck, Miranda Martinez & Byron Sarhangian - Snell & WilmerOn March 13, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14394, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction” (the “Order”). The Order directs federal agencies to reduce regulatory burdens on residential development, streamline environmental permitting, and encourage state and local governments to adopt housing-friendly policies.
The Order includes several key provisions that developers and homebuilders should be aware of moving forward.
Key Provisions
The Order targets four main areas:
1. Federal Environmental Regulations
First, it directs the Secretary of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise permitting standards, including stormwater permits, wetlands permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and related construction-site requirements. The Order also targets energy-efficiency mandates for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) financed housing. For developers and homebuilders, these revisions could reduce project delays and compliance costs associated with stormwater management, wetlands mitigation, and energy-efficiency upgrades, expenses that often add significant time and cost to residential development projects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bennett Houck, Snell & Wilmer,
Miranda Martinez, Snell & Wilmer and
Byron Sarhangian, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Houck may be contacted at bhouck@swlaw.com
Ms. Martinez may be contacted at mimartinez@swlaw.com
Mr. Sarhangian may be contacted at bsarhangian@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape
September 15, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).)
The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
