Builders Oppose Senate Housing Bill Over Investor Ban Provision
March 24, 2026 —
Katy O'Donnell - BloombergA powerful group representing the nation’s home builders is coming out against the most significant housing legislation in more than a decade over a provision negotiated by the White House that would restrict institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.
The builders’ objection could imperil the bill’s chances of becoming law, even as leaders of both parties are desperate to show they are doing something to alleviate voters’
cost-of-living concerns. The Senate voted 90-8 to clear a procedural hurdle for the bill on Wednesday, with a vote on final passage expected early next week.
The inclusion of the investor ban in a broader housing bill was key to getting the White House on board,
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Tuesday.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Katy O'Donnell, Bloomberg
Insured Does Not Prevail on Summary Judgment Motion Invoking Ensuing Loss Provision
May 05, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of fact regarding implication of the policy’s ensuing loss provision. Stella Prop. Dev.. & Event Productions, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15854 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026).
Stella owned a cultural center that was insured under a commercial property all-risk policy issued by Auto-Owners. A windstorm with gusts of 65 miles per hour struck the Center causing damage. The Center’s inspector found extensive wind damage on nearly all facets of the roof. Further, the inspector found the existing organic shingles were in “very poor condition” and were “defective, discontinued, and no longer available.” The estimated cost of repairs to the roof was $108,010.52.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
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
Chambers USA Recognizes GRSM as 2026 Industry Leader
June 29, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has once again been recognized by Chambers USA, a prestigious directory of the country’s top law firms. In addition to the firm’s practice recognitions, eight partners, David Capell, Nancy Erfle, Matthew Foy, Ashlee Grant, Craig Heryford, Andrew Port, Todd Regan, and Angela Richie, were recognized among the nation’s top lawyers in their respective fields.
Chambers USA recognized the firm in the following eight categories:
USA – Nationwide – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer, Band 4
The firm is widely sought after by national insurance sector clients facing a wide array of coverage disputes as well as bad faith claims. The firm has additional capabilities in class actions and appellate litigation. Its broad base of experience includes professional liability, construction, and bankruptcy-related issues. This is the third year the firm has received this recognition.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Segal McCambridge Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings
June 15, 2026 —
Segal McCambridgeLos Angeles, CA, June 8, 2026 -
Segal McCambridge is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized as a leader by Chambers USA in California. The firm is listed in the Chambers-ranked department, receiving a
Band 5 ranking for construction in California. The ranking further reinforces the firm's commitment to supporting California's construction market, from owners to developers and contractors, in high-stakes disputes statewide.
"Chambers' research-driven process and independence make this acknowledgment especially meaningful. We're proud of this ranking and grateful to our clients and colleagues whose consistent trust and collaboration make our work possible," said Jason P. Eckerly, Managing Shareholder of Segal McCambridge.
Chambers and Partners is widely regarded as one of the legal industry's most respected and independent ranking organizations. Operating across 200 jurisdictions and relied on in more than 70 countries, Chambers has, since 1990, conducted rigorous research to identify leading lawyers and law firms through a methodology that combines analysis of firm capability, achievement, and market presence through interviews and assessment of recent matters across more than 1,400 U.S. ranking tables, covering all 50 states, Washington, DC, and nationwide.
About Segal McCambridge
Segal McCambridge has built a reputation as a national law firm of accomplished trial attorneys for almost four decades. Founded in 1986, the firm has grown from a four-lawyer shop in Chicago to a firm with more than 20 offices nationwide. The firm routinely counsels and defends clients, including Fortune 500 companies, corporations, and individuals, across the United States in complex litigation matters, including, but not limited to: asbestos, class action, construction, employment, environmental, food and beverage, insurance coverage and bad faith, life sciences, product liability, professional liability, technology and cyber risk, transportation, and warranty. For more information, visit: www.segalmccambridge.com.
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...
Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits
May 12, 2026 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn the case of
County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com
Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary PolicyDon’t Be the First One to Breach Your Construction ContractOwner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability ShieldNew York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon ContractorsThe Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?White and Williams Lawyers Recognized by Best LawyersContractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth ItMcGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data UnitGuilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws2011 Worst Year Ever for Home SalesETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing MarketContractor Sued for Contract Fraud by GovernmentCalifornia Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 ClaimRecognize: A Construction Safety Week Technical BulletinLiquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution BasisRun Spot...Run!Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water ExclusionA Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette DoctrineSettlement Reached in Bridge Failure LawsuitAmbiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance CoverageHeavy Rains Cause Flooding, Mudslides in JapanConstruction Robots 2023Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in PartFlorida's Third DCA Reasserts the Teeth of Chapter 558 and the Future of Construction Defect LitigationResidential Construction Surges in DurhamConstruction Defect Bill Introduced in CaliforniaConstruction Executives Should Be Dusting Off Employee HandbooksProfessional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against AttorneysAthens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber AttackAs Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the WallMidwest Team Secures Resolution of Matter for Homeowners’ Association Client, Recovery of Attorneys’ FeesFifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of InsuredSpain Risks €10.6 Billion Flood Damage Bill, Sanchez SaysFinal Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction ProjectsAppellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935) An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability PolicyTrump Replaces Architect to Lead $300 Million Ballroom DesignTo Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical ConsiderationsState Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam CaseA Property Boom Is Coming to China's Smaller CitiesNew York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement ChainInspired by Filipino Design, an Apartment Building Looks HomewardDefense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured ExclusionBreaking Ground On New California Public Works Prevailing Wage RequirementsA Win for Clarity: What a Recent Federal Court Decision Means for Davis-Bacon ComplianceInsurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law AnalysisWill The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and ReinsuranceJurisdictional Conflict Over “Related Claims”: Montana Federal Court Latest to Weigh in on When Claims Are RelatedCalifornia Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” LanguageCalifornia Court Affirms $1.8 Million Judgment Against HOA for Failing to Investigate and Remediate Water IntrusionDemand for New Homes Good News for Home BuildersA Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important UpdateWhat Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square FeetYear in Review: Top Insurance Cases of 2024
