Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions
June 23, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updatesn a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions.
Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof:
On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Snell & Wilmer Recognized Among the Top 10 Largest Law Firms in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal for the Ninth Consecutive Year
April 27, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been named the eighth largest law firm in Orange County on the Orange County Business Journal’s
2026 List of Law Firms. The office has been ranked among the top 10 largest law firms in the region by the Orange County Business Journal for nine consecutive years.
“We are proud to once again be recognized among the top law firms in Orange County,” said
Jonathan E. Frank, managing partner of the firm’s Orange County office. “This recognition is a testament to the outstanding attorneys and professionals in our Orange County office and the clients who trust us with their most important matters. Being ranked among the top 10 largest firms in the region for nine consecutive years reflects both the strength of our team and our deep commitment to serving the Orange County business community.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid
September 29, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
Winning the work is not the same as winning the project, at least financially. Consider a contractor that commits to procure custom or long-lead materials before receiving complete construction documents. Depending on the language of the contract, if the final design is altered after those materials have been ordered, the contractor may be left responsible for replacement costs, procurement delays, or both. Alternatively, a subcontractor that accepts a pay-if-paid provision without investigating the owner’s financing, or prematurely waives lien rights, potentially risks nonpayment for properly performed work.
Such concessions can quickly transform an apparently profitable project into a significant financial burden. A successful bid can therefore become an unsuccessful project if the contractor accepts contractual “red flags” without evaluating their consequences and the long-term financial impacts that they may have. The significance of each risk will depend on the project, the parties, the proposed contract, applicable law, and the contractor’s business objectives. Although not comprehensive, this article identifies several key considerations for that process to help mitigate certain risks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.com
Additional Insureds Obligated to Meet Self-Insured Retention
October 20, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that the additional insureds had to meet the policy’s self-insured retention before a duty to defend was triggered. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Premier Design & Build Group, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXXIS 170741 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2026).
Amerisure issued CGL and umbrella policies to Premier Design & Build Group, LLC. Amerisure had the right and duty to defend in certain suits for property damage under both policies.
Premier contracted with MG East, LLC (MGE) to build three buildings. After the buildings were constructed, MG filed suit against Premier in state court, seeking recovery for allegedly defective installation of the roof, flashing, and gutters on each of the buildings. Premier had subcontracted with Tecta American Sough Florida, Inc. to install the flashing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
In the Eye of the Beholder: Court of Appeal Finds Duty of Care Owed by Owner and Contractors for Death of Minors Caused by Independent Truck Driver
May 05, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogI was a T.A. for my high school history teacher, a really smart and nice guy, Mr. Reynolds. In the room at the back of the classroom which served as his office he had
the picture above. It’s called “My Wife and My Mother-in-Law” and is taken from a German postcard from 1888. Depending on how you look it, you might see fashionable young lady, or an old lady.
Cases can sometimes be like that: You see what you want to see. The next case is also like that.
In
Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 49 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of an owner and its contractors in a case involving the death of two minors struck by a dump truck enroute to a non-permitted off-site staging area.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Earns Prestigious Band One Ranking in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide
June 22, 2026 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group is pleased to share that it has received a Band One ranking in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide for Insurance, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Patricia B. Santelle, Chair Emeritus, Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Robert Walsh, Partner have all been individually ranked on the Chambers USA 2026 Guide in Insurance in Pennsylvania.
The Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice's consistent focus on their clients and handling of complex claims were just two of the attributes contributing to their elite Band One ranking, after 11 years on the Chambers USA list. When asked about their experience working with White and Williams’ Pennsylvania Insurance Practice, one client stated, “What distinguishes White and Williams is the high level of service and accountability. The team is responsive, organized and reliable, which allows our internal teams to move quickly and make informed decisions with confidence.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Wisconsin Supreme Court Finds Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provisions
September 29, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiReversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether ensuing losses as defined in the policy were covered. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ropicky, 2026 Wisc. LEXIS 302 (Wis. July 7, 2026).
The insured suffered damage during a storm on May 11, 2018, when rainwater poured into the home. The insureds gave notice to their insurer, Cincinnati. Upon inspection, Cincinnati determined that water intrusion resulted from multiple construction defects in the home. In the front of the home, water entered through a gap in the stone veneer. The inspector also concluded that the damage from rainwater was not just from the May 11, 2018, storm, but damage had occurred from prior storm events.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
