Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices
August 11, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerPHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Massachusetts Settlement Targets Mortgage-Backed “Homeowner Benefit” Agreements
April 08, 2026 —
A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Mehul N. Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas - SheppardOn 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...
CEO: Power Isn’t the Only Electrical Challenge for AI Data Centers
April 14, 2026 —
Francesco "Frio" Iorio - Engineering News-RecordEveryone knows that data centers are voracious consumers of electricity. In fact, the U.S. is currently scrambling to meet unprecedented levels of power demand not seen since
the early days of electrification and the widespread adoption of air conditioning.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Francesco "Frio" Iorio, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
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
It’s More Than a Feeling: Proving Construction Damages and When You Should Hire an Expert to Help Do It
July 27, 2026 —
Bradley E. Sands & Katie McCracken - ConsensusDocsWhen you win a bid, you might be singing that everything is going your way. Then something goes wrong. The owner hands you defective plans, sits on RFI responses or other critical information, or otherwise upends the work. The costs pile up through no fault of your own. You feel wronged, and you want to be made whole. But a feeling that you got burned is not enough. To recover, that feeling has to become something the law recognizes as damages. So, what are damages, and how do you prove them?
At bottom, contract damages are the money that puts the non-breaching party (i.e., the party that doesn’t breach the contract) in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP and Katie McCracken, Summer Associate, University of Georgia School of Law
Read the full story...Mr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
AI in AEC 2026: Doing AI Right and Rethinking Your Business Model
April 08, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe sixth AI at the AEC 2026 conference showcased the evolution of AI discussions. There were, naturally, many talks about software and technologies. But more than before, there were conversations about realizing AI’s business value.
Two themes appeared in nearly every session I attended. First, many companies struggle with AI adoption, not because they lack tools, but because their thinking isn’t right. Second, when AI works, it disrupts the business model that brought them there.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Insurer Dispenses with Bad Faith Claim on Summary Judgment
June 22, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment because the insured failed to present evidence that the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. PSY Burger, LLC v. State Farm General Insurance Company, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66991(C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026).
The insured’s commercial property suffered heavy damage from tropical storm Hilary. State Farm denied coverage to repair the damage. The insured sued State Farm alleging breach of contract and bad faith due to an inadequate investigation. Apparently, the insured did not retain an expert to opine on claims handling.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
