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
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.
GRSM Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2027
August 24, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani is pleased to announce that 183 of its attorneys were listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2027 Edition, six of whom received “Lawyer of the Year” recognitions. Additionally, 49 GRSM attorneys were recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2027.
Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on peer-review evaluations. For the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®, results were determined using millions of confidential attorney evaluations. Ones to Watch adopts the same peer-review methodology.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder
July 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable.
By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & WilmerA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).
KEY HOLDINGS
1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer,
Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and
Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com
Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Old Storm, New Claim: A Fifth Circuit Notice Reminder
November 02, 2026 —
Koorosh Talieh & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a recent decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a commercial property insurer in a dispute involving the timing of notice for a hail damage claim. In
Gann v. Depositors Insurance Co., No. 25-11291 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026), the policyholder reported a claim after discovering interior water damage in 2022, but its consultant later attributed all of the claimed roof damage to a hailstorm that occurred in 2018. The court concluded that the delay in identifying and reporting the 2018 loss was unreasonable and prejudiced the insurer’s ability to investigate the circumstances of the loss in a timely manner. The decision is an important reminder for policyholders of the need for timely notice under property insurance policies. Such issues can arise, as they did in Gann, even where damage is not immediately apparent, its cause is not initially known, or the cause of loss may implicate a different policy period than the one under which the claim was first made.
The Dispute
The dispute arose from hail damage to the roof of a commercial property in Irving, Texas. After discovering interior water damage, the policyholder reported a claim to the insurer in September 2022, specifying August 9, 2022, as the date of loss. The insurer inspected the property and determined that a portion of the roof had sustained hail-related damage and issued payment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Koorosh Talieh, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Talieh may be contacted at ktalieh@hunton.com
Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@hunton.com
Read the full story...
No Ink, No Problem: When Employees and Agents Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements
August 11, 2026 —
Jordan Heath & Jacob Morrison - ConsensusDocsArbitration is a fundamental component of modern construction contracting. Many in the industry recognize the potential benefits and protections arbitration can provide to the business in the event of a dispute. But an important question many contracts do not address is: who does the arbitration agreement cover? Does it include the business entity only, or the individuals acting on behalf of the entity?
As courts have long recognized, entities can generally only act through their employees, representatives, or agents.[1] This article discusses the circumstances in which an agent may rely on an arbitration provision entered by its employer. This is known as the agency doctrine.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Heath, Associate, Jones Walker LLP and Jacob Morrison, Law Student University of Georgia, Jones Walker LLP
Read the full story...Mr. Heath may be contacted at
jheath@joneswalker.com
Navigating the New Frontier of Federal-State Energy Regulation: What Energy Companies Need to Know
June 08, 2026 —
Ryan J. Regula - Snell & WilmerIntroduction
The jurisdictional boundary between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states is being actively contested, from challenges to landmark transmission planning rules to disputes over emergency cost-allocation orders, in ways that carry significant legal, financial, and operational implications for energy companies. For utilities, independent power producers, and transmission developers, understanding these dynamics is now a strategic imperative.
The Jurisdictional Divide: A Bright Line That Isn’t
The Federal Power Act divides authority between FERC and the states: FERC exercises jurisdiction over interstate transmission and wholesale electricity sales, while states retain authority over generation facilities, retail rates, and decisions about resource mix. The D.C. Circuit has regularly been called upon to “referee the Federal Power Act’s jurisdictional line separating [FERC’s] jurisdiction over the federal wholesale market and States’ jurisdiction over facilities used in local distribution.”1
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan J. Regula, Snell & WilmerMr. Regula may be contacted at
rregula@swlaw.com
