Owner Taking Assignment of General Contractor’s Claims Against a Subcontractor(s)
September 21, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects. The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims.
This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out. The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.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.
Mark Cronenwett Obtains Appellate Ruling Vacating Default Judgment Against Mortgage Lender Client
October 12, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisDallas Partner Mark Cronenwett recently secured a decision from the Dallas Court of Appeals that vacated a default judgment against his mortgage lender client, on the grounds that the client was never properly served with the complaint.
In prior litigation, a real property investor purchased a Texas residential property for pennies on the dollar at an HOA foreclosure sale. That investor then filed a frivolous lawsuit against Lewis Brisbois' mortgage-lender client to invalidate its lien, contending that mortgage lender had abandoned the debt because it failed to respond to the investor’s alleged requests for information about the amounts owed on the loan.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem
September 08, 2026 —
Owen Newman - Construction ExecutiveThis is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects.
An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Newman may be contacted at
oknewman@duanemorris.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...
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
Idaho Supreme Court Delivers First Authoritative Construction on the Community Infrastructure District Act
November 09, 2026 —
Sara M. Ajeti & Tara Martens Miller - Snell & WilmerOn February 12, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its first authoritative decision construing the Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act), Idaho Code §§ 50-3101 to 50-3121, in Doyle v. Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1. The opinion resolves several issues of first impression — what qualifies as reimbursable “community infrastructure,” how strictly the 60-day statute of limitations bars challenges to a CID’s formation and bond authority, and whether a CID is legally distinct from its creating municipality. For developers forming or using a CID, the decision provides welcome certainty on the durability of CID bonds, reimbursement structures, and the scope of qualifying community infrastructure.
Background
The CID Act allows a developer to petition Idaho cities and counties to form special-purpose taxing districts that finance community infrastructure ahead of development and allow growth to “pay for itself.” I.C. § 50-3101(1)(a)–(c). “Community infrastructure” is broadly defined to include roads, sidewalks, parks, sewers, stormwater facilities, and other public facilities that have a “substantial nexus” to, and directly or indirectly benefit, the district. I.C. § 50-3102(2). A CID is formed upon petition by two-thirds of residents or all landowners within a proposed district to the governing city or county. Once formed, CIDs are political subdivisions with only the power the Act expressly grants, including the powers to contract, finance infrastructure, levy property taxes, and incur debt through general obligation bonds. I.C. § 50-3105(1). Qualified electors within the district must approve a ceiling bond amount by a two-thirds vote; once approved, the district board may issue additional bond series without a further elector vote, notice, or hearing. I.C. § 50-3108(1)–(3).
Reprinted courtesy of
Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer and
Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com
Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
White and Williams LLP Secures a Clean Sweep Dismissal of Architect's Professional Liability Coverage Lawsuit
August 16, 2026 —
Daniel E. Bryer & Brendaliz Minaya Ruiz - White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP achieved a complete dismissal of professional liability coverage claims through a strategic defense led by Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group attorneys Daniel E. Bryer, Partner and Brendaliz Minaya Ruiz, Associate.
In a nuanced action styled, Vincent Cusumano Architect P.C., et al. v. Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company, et al., decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiffs asserted twelve pre-contractual and contractual-based causes of action against their liability insurer, Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company, and its insurance agent (collectively, “Defendants”) for denying a professional liability claim arising from plaintiffs’ prior work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel E. Bryer, White and Williams LLP and
Brendaliz Minaya Ruiz, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bryer may be contacted at bryerd@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Ruiz may be contacted at minayaruizb@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
