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
Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim Denied
November 02, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but granted the motion to dismiss the claim for declaratory judgment. Jimenez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182079 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2026).
The insured owned a two-family property which was insured by State Farm. After a fire damaged the property, the insured submitted a claim to State Farm. The policy provided for Fair Rental Value coverage “[w]hen a loss insured causes that part of the residence premises rented to others or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable.”
Before the fire, the insured alleged that he rented part of the property under an oral lease agreement. In support of his claim for Fair Rental Value, the insured alleged that he provided State Farm with bank deposit receipts demonstrating that he collected rent in cash. The insured further alleged that his rental ledger was destroyed in the fire.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Survey Reveals Overwhelmingly Optimistic Results on the Use of AI in Construction
May 14, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveOn December 5, 2025,
CMiC and
Dodge released a
survey asking over 6,000 companies across various sectors of the construction industry their stance on artificial intelligence—whether they use it or not; whether they like it or not; whether they have or are planning to implement it or not; and so on. Considering its reputation for skepticism and reluctance when it comes to adopting new forms of technology, the construction industry pleasantly surprised CMiC and Dodge with its answers to these questions, with 87% of contractors believing AI will have a meaningful impact on construction.
“The research indicates the construction industry is nearing a tipping point for AI adoption,” says Steve Jones, senior director of industry insights at Dodge Construction Network, who sat down with Construction Executive to delve further into the survey questions and answers and what the industry’s current position on them means for AI’s future role in construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Idaho Supreme Court Delivers First Authoritative Construction on the Community Infrastructure District Act
November 09, 2026 —
Sara M. Ajeti & Tara Martens Miller - Snell & WilmerOn February 12, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its first authoritative decision construing the Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act), Idaho Code §§ 50-3101 to 50-3121, in Doyle v. Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1. The opinion resolves several issues of first impression — what qualifies as reimbursable “community infrastructure,” how strictly the 60-day statute of limitations bars challenges to a CID’s formation and bond authority, and whether a CID is legally distinct from its creating municipality. For developers forming or using a CID, the decision provides welcome certainty on the durability of CID bonds, reimbursement structures, and the scope of qualifying community infrastructure.
Background
The CID Act allows a developer to petition Idaho cities and counties to form special-purpose taxing districts that finance community infrastructure ahead of development and allow growth to “pay for itself.” I.C. § 50-3101(1)(a)–(c). “Community infrastructure” is broadly defined to include roads, sidewalks, parks, sewers, stormwater facilities, and other public facilities that have a “substantial nexus” to, and directly or indirectly benefit, the district. I.C. § 50-3102(2). A CID is formed upon petition by two-thirds of residents or all landowners within a proposed district to the governing city or county. Once formed, CIDs are political subdivisions with only the power the Act expressly grants, including the powers to contract, finance infrastructure, levy property taxes, and incur debt through general obligation bonds. I.C. § 50-3105(1). Qualified electors within the district must approve a ceiling bond amount by a two-thirds vote; once approved, the district board may issue additional bond series without a further elector vote, notice, or hearing. I.C. § 50-3108(1)–(3).
Reprinted courtesy of
Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer and
Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com
Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke Win Final Summary Judgment on Behalf of Homeowner’s Insurance Company
November 02, 2026 —
Ryan S. Parker, Robert Biferie & Matthew Groteke - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke won final summary judgment on behalf of their client, a homeowner’s insurance company. The case related to a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Milton, which was reported more than ten months after the date of loss. The homeowner’s insurance company reviewed historical aerial photography of the roof and determined that there was no evidence of damage immediately after the Hurricane, which was inconsistent with the condition of the roof when it was inspected more than ten months later. Additionally, the homeowner’s insurance company was unable to determine when the interior water damage occurred due to the delay in reporting the claim. After a lawsuit was filed, the Traub Lieberman team took depositions of the Plaintiffs and the opposing expert and eventually filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the failure to timely report the claim and resulting prejudice to their client. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that notice of the claim was untimely as a matter of law and that the Plaintiffs failed to rebut the legal presumption of prejudice to the insurance company. As a result of the ruling, the insurance company has a valid claim for attorney’s fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan S. Parker, Traub Lieberman,
Robert Biferie, Traub Lieberman and
Matthew Groteke, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Parker may be contacted at rparker@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Biferie may be contacted at rbiferie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Groteke may be contacted at mgroteke@tlsslaw.com
Read the full story...
Leading Boutiques Combine to Form SDV Fenchurch, A Global Law Firm for Insurance Policyholders
September 15, 2026 —
SDV FenchurchTRUMBULL, Conn., and LONDON, Sept. 1, 2026 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. (SDV), Fenchurch Law, Wesolowski Abogados, and CLIR & Fenchurch and their partner members in Asia, Europe and North America combined today to launch SDV Fenchurch, a global law firm built exclusively to represent policyholders and the brokers who advise them.
Structured as a Swiss verein, SDV Fenchurch unites dedicated insurance-recovery practices across eight jurisdictions in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, and Singapore. With over 90 lawyers devoted to insurance coverage matters, the firm is among the largest policyholder-side practices in the world and, by number of jurisdictions with full-time policyholder counsel capabilities, the most geographically extensive.
The founders are brought together by a single shared mission: to act solely for policyholders, never the insurers, in insurance disputes. This is in stark contrast to most international firms with insurance practices, which mostly represent insurers only.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SDV Fenchurch
Bid Today, Pay a Different Rate Tomorrow? California AB 1198 Changes Prevailing Wage Rules for Large Public Works Projects
November 09, 2026 —
Heather Frisch & Brenda Radmacher - The Construction SeytContractors and subcontractors bidding on California’s largest public works projects will soon face a new labor-cost risk: the wage rates they are required to pay may change after they submit their bids. California’s prevailing wage rules generally set the minimum pay for workers on public works projects based on the type of work and the project’s location. Under
Assembly Bill 1198 (“AB 1198”), updated prevailing wage rates may apply during construction to public works contracts awarded or advertised for bid after July 1, 2027 if the awarded value of the prime contract is $35 million or more. On those projects, the wage rates that applied when the project was first advertised may not remain the same throughout the work.
For contractors pursuing infrastructure projects that take several years to complete, this is not just a payroll issue. A change in required wage rates can affect the cost of work already priced in a bid. Contractors will need to consider that possibility when estimating labor costs, setting aside funds for unexpected costs, obtaining subcontractor prices, and negotiating contract terms that address price increases or changes to the work. Those terms can determine whether the contractor or the public agency awarding the contract bears the additional cost. Contractors will also need processes in place to track wage changes and their effect on project costs.
Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Frisch, Seyfarth and
Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth
Ms. Frisch may be contacted at hfrisch@seyfarth.com
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
