Kamran Salour Named to Los Angeles Times' 2026 Legal Visionaries List
June 02, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisOrange County Partner and Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Co-Chair Kamran Salour was named to the Los Angeles Times' 2026 Legal Visionaries list, which honors the most innovative attorneys in Southern California.
In announcing this year's Legal Visionaries, the Times said that Mr. Salour and his co-honorees "distinguish themselves not only through skilleand results but through an unwavering commitment to their clients, their craft and the communities they serve."
"Their paths – shaped by rigorous education, defining cases and purposeful leadership – offer a deeper perspective on what sets true standouts apart," the Times' announcement stated. "Together, these visionaries exemplify a forward-thinking approach to the law, elevating both their profession and the people who depend on it."
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Water Leak Damage
August 11, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the insured’s claim due to late notice. Global Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120183 (S. D. Fla. June 1, 2026).
Global suffered water damage on September 3, 2021, which originated in the bathroom of one of its rental properties. Global reported the claim to its insurer, Scottsdale, on October 19, 2021. Prior to reporting the claim, Global hired a handyman to inspect the property and then demolished the damaged area and repaired the bathroom.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Secures Complete Judgment for Defense in Years-Long Dispute Spanning Multiple Venues
June 22, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Hartford, Connecticut, and Dallas offices recently secured a complete defense judgment and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an arbitration on behalf of a longtime client, concluding a dispute that lasted several years and traversed multiple jurisdictions.
The dispute initially arose in Texas state court, and almost immediately, the claimant began pursuing the matter aggressively, a pattern that continued until the day judgment was entered in GRSM’s client’s favor. GRSM’s team mounted a strong defense, achieving an early success in compelling mandatory arbitration.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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.
GRSM Attorneys Named Finalists in 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
March 10, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been shortlisted as finalists for Corporate Counsel’s 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) Awards, which honor women leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing the empowerment of women in the legal profession.
In the Law Firm Internal Collaborative Leadership category, Stephanie Jones was recognized for her exceptional ability to foster collaboration, mentor talent, and align colleagues across GRSM. Jones has consistently demonstrated leadership rooted in trust, inclusion, and shared purpose, qualities that have strengthened the firm during a period of extraordinary growth. Her impact on the firm’s culture and success will continue as she steps into her role as Chief Operating Partner in June 2026, where she will further build on her leadership in fostering teamwork, mentorship, and alignment across the firm’s national platform.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/11/25) – An AI Inflection Point for Hotels, Investor Pivot in Build-to-Rent and Looming Legislation for Single-Family Investors
March 24, 2026 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, lodging demand for World Cup brings growth, commercial property management firms use of AI becomes firmer, construction industry shows slow start to the year, and more!
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
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...
