Court Denies Cross Summary Judgment Motions on Coverage for Odors in Newly Purchased Home
October 06, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court denied cross motions seeking to establish whether the policy covered damage due to smells in the insureds’ newly purchased home. Akina v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S Dist. LEXIS 162817 (W. D. Wash. July 22, 2026).
Plaintiffs bought a home in May 2024 but never conducted an inspection before purchasing the property. Before moving in, plaintiffs secured a homeowners’ polilcy from State Farm.
After moving in, plaintiffs began noticing smells in the house and started suffering from health symptoms. Plaintiffs learned from neighbors that the prior occupants had been witnessed in “drug activity.” Plaintiffs moved out of the house and had testing done. The home tested positive for methamphetamine pollution.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Meaningful Change to Contractors License Law Disgorgement Rule of Business and Professions Code Section 7031
November 02, 2026 —
Garret Mandel - Porter Law GroupCalifornia Business and Professions Code section 7031 has historically imposed a severe and unforgiving penalty on any licensed contractor or subcontractor (“licensee”) performing any construction work after its contractor’s license becomes suspended or is revoked. The penalty for many years has been a prohibition against the licensee bringing an action to collect payment owed and a draconian penalty allowing the party who paid the licensee to recover, or cause the licensee to “disgorge,” any payment the licensee received for the entire contract. This strict penalty could apply to funds received for the entire contract even when the license was suspended or revoked for only a short period of time during the project. This meant, for example, that a licensee who was paid $10 million under a contract for a project that took a year to build could have to disgorge the entire $10 million it received under that contract as a result of performing work while its license was suspended for only a week of the entire project duration. Draconian indeed. A limited statutory substantial-compliance exemption could provide relief, but it requires a court determination that the statutory conditions have been met.
Beginning on January 1, 2027, the licensee will be thrown a lifeline on this issue. Under California Senate Bill 342, becoming effective on January 1, 2027, California contractors on qualifying projects will no longer face the same severe penalties – but there are limitations.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Mandel, Porter Law GroupMr. Mandel may be contacted at
gmandel@porterlaw.com
Five Snell & Wilmer Partners Named to Utah Business’ 2026 Legal Elite
September 29, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerSALT LAKE CITY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that five partners have been named to Utah Business’ 2026 “Legal Elite.” The annual recognition honors leading Utah attorneys who are making a meaningful impact in their respective areas of practice. Honorees are peer-nominated and selected by a panel of experienced legal and law enforcement professionals based on their legal knowledge, commitment to ethical standards, and professional achievements.
Wade R. Budge is a land use and real estate lawyer with significant experience advising developers and owners in all aspects of real estate development. He has negotiated entitlements for master planned communities, industrials projects, retail centers, office buildings, subdivisions, and mountain resorts throughout Utah. He also regularly represents clients in the use, acquisition, and disposition of real estate projects throughout the Western United States. Budge has advised developers in obtaining public incentives and using public finance tools, including tax increment financing, to facilitate new and redevelopment projects, and regularly advises clients with government relations matters involving state and local governments. Budge has negotiated public-private partnerships with dozens of local governments and with every one of the state’s development agencies, including the Point of the Mountain State Land Authority, the Military Installation Development Authority, and the Utah Fairpark Area Investment and Restoration District.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
RONI: What You Lose by Not Investing in AI – With Sam Zolfagharian
September 21, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessSam Zolfagharian returns to the AEC Business Podcast for her second appearance. She is an AI strategist, keynote speaker, and the author of two books, Disrupt It and Future by Design. She spoke at the AI in AEC conference in Helsinki in March, and we picked up the conversation where that keynote left off.
The starting point was a question her clients keep raising. Executives are being asked by their boards about the return on their AI investments, and many of them do not have an answer they trust. This episode is about what to measure instead, and when the dollar figure finally becomes the right number to look at.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Los Angeles Times Ranks Lewis Brisbois Third Largest Firm in LA County, Largest for Litigation
June 08, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisThe Los Angeles Times has ranked Lewis Brisbois the third largest firm in LA County by attorney headcount, and first for number of litigation attorneys.
Lewis Brisbois, whose Los Angeles office is led by Co-Managing Partners Jana I. Lubert and Kathleen Walker, has 273 attorneys working in LA County, including 167 partners.
The firm ranked No. 1 for Litigation in the county, with 206 attorneys under the leadership of Partner Craig Holden.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Location, Location, Location — But Which One? The Few Words in Your Construction Contract that Pick Where You Fight
June 29, 2026 —
Brad Sands - ConsensusDocsMost professionals know the old real estate line: location, location, location. It turns out to be just as true for construction contracts as it is for property.
Consider a recent case involving a project owner that hired two design firms for a project. When issues arose during construction, the owner sued the design firms in state court in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The defendants then removed the case to the federal district court in Galveston, a courthouse in a different county. But the owner wanted the case back in Brazoria County state court. Whether it got its wish came down to two words in the contract: “situated in.” This article is about words like those.
A construction contract’s forum selection clause names the place for the fight nobody plans to have, and where that fight happens can shape how it goes. This article explains why the wording in your forum selection clause deserves careful reading before you sign a construction contract. It is not a deep dive into the mechanics of federal removal jurisdiction, and it is not an academic comparison of the terms “forum” and “venue.” Instead, it is a practical look at how courts actually read these clauses, so the location of a future fight is the one you intended.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brad Sands, Jones Walker, LLPMr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
Properly Taking Judicial Notice of Florida’s Building Code
October 12, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMany construction defects cases involve Florida’s Building Code. A recent non-construction case, BSREP II PBG Resort, LLC v Ginsburg, 2026 WL 265226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), discussed a court taking judicial notice of a provision in the Florida Building Code. This case was a premise liability case where the plaintiff tripped in an asphalt parking lot. The plaintiff, without complying with proper procedural notice protocol, asked the court to take judicial notice of a section of Florida’s Building Code, i.e., admitting this section as relevant evidence in the case. The trial court granted the request for judicial notice and the plaintiff used this as the basis of her cross-examination, the jury instructions, and closing argument that the violation of this section of Florida’s Building Code was evidence of negligence. This was in error.
First, Florida’s Building Code is NOT a statute but an administrative rule. Ginsburg, supra. As an administrative rule, a court “may” but is not obligated to take judicial notice of the rule – it is a permissive judicial notice request per Florida Statute s. 90.203 and 90.202(9). This is important because the trial court viewed Florida’s Building Code as a statute it mandatorily had to take judicial notice of per Florida Statute s. 90.201, which was in error. Because it was permissive, the plaintiff needed to comply with statutory procedural notice protocols, which the plaintiff failed to do.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
