Over 50 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 7th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America
September 01, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois56 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 26 offices have been named to the 7th edition of “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.” Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition!
You can see the full list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 33rd edition of The Best Lawyers in America
here.
Akron, OH
- Partner Meleah M. Skillern - Commercial Litigation
Atlanta, GA
- Partner Catherine Crawley - Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; and Transportation Law
- Associate Davis Lackey - Insurance Law; and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
When Arbitrators Overreach: Utah Supreme Court Trims an Award Built on an Unpled Claim
November 02, 2026 —
Tyson J. Prisbrey & Mark O. Morris - Snell & WilmerConstruction industry participants have long favored arbitration to resolve disputes, prizing its speed, confidentiality, and finality over traditional litigation. That finality, however, depends on arbitrators staying within the bounds of what the parties actually put before them. In RV Holdings 4, LLC, et al. v. Standard Fiber Investors, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by awarding damages on a claim the prevailing party never submitted for decision.
The dispute arose from a management-fee relationship between Standard Fiber, a bedding manufacturer, and several affiliated “Ridgeview” entities that provided financial and accounting oversight services. After Standard Fiber stopped paying management fees in 2020, the parties pursued their claims in arbitration. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand sought recovery under two specific theories: that a 2006 management services agreement remained in effect, and alternatively, that an oral “50/50 Agreement” entitled it to a share of fees paid to an affiliated entity. Notably, Ridgeview never asserted a claim for breach of a separate 2014 fee arrangement, and affirmatively disavowed reliance on it. The arbitrator rejected both of Ridgeview’s submitted theories and instead awarded Ridgeview $725,000 based on that unpled 2014 agreement. The district court confirmed the award, concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally related to the parties’ arguments, including evidence Standard Fiber itself introduced about the 2014 arrangement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tyson J. Prisbrey, Snell & Wilmer and
Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Prisbrey may be contacted at tprisbrey@swlaw.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
The Leak Was Repaired. Why Is It Back? What California HOA Boards Should Document Next
November 09, 2026 —
The Naumann Law Firm, PCA resident reports water staining near a window. The HOA arranges a repair, the area dries, and the complaint is closed. Months later, the stain returns. Then another resident reports a similar problem elsewhere in the building.
At The Naumann Law Firm, we encourage HOA boards and property managers to pay attention to that sequence. A returning leak does not automatically mean the building has a construction defect. It does mean the board needs a clear record of what happened, what was repaired, and what changed afterward.
Start With the History, Not Just the New Stain
When a leak returns, the latest photograph tells only part of the story. Pull together the earlier maintenance request, inspection notes, photographs, repair proposal, invoice, and any messages from the resident or contractor.
Then ask:
- Was the leak reported in the same location before?
- What did the contractor identify as the cause?
- What work was completed, and when?
- Did the repair address the source of the water or only the visible damage?
- Have other units or common areas experienced similar symptoms?
These details help a board understand whether it is dealing with a new problem, an unsuccessful repair, or a pattern that needs a broader investigation.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Naumann Law Firm, PC
Ball Janik LLP Welcomes Construction Defect Attorney and U.S. Air Force Veteran Jake Scott to its Fort Lauderdale Office
June 02, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPBall Janik LLP, a leading construction defect and insurance recovery law firm, has welcomed Jake Scott as an associate in its Fort Lauderdale office. Scott joins the Construction Defect Practice Group, bringing experience across construction litigation that includes construction defect, contract dispute, and negligence matters, along with a track record of representing construction professionals through depositions, court appearances, and trial preparation to support the firm's steady growth and client service statewide.
"We're excited to welcome Jake Scott to our Fort Lauderdale office and Construction Defect Practice Group," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner at Ball Janik LLP. "We look forward to the fresh perspectives and legal solutions he will provide for community associations across South Florida."
Scott is a results-driven attorney dedicated to providing strategic counsel for complex legal challenges. He has experience managing all phases of a case, from early investigation and discovery through trial preparation and settlement negotiations.
Prior to joining Ball Janik, Scott served as an associate attorney in Fort Lauderdale, where he represented clients in construction litigation matters, handled depositions and court appearances, conducted legal research, and drafted pleadings, motions, and briefs. He also worked as an attorney in Tampa, where he represented contractors, subcontractors, and construction firms in defending claims involving construction defects, contractual disputes, and negligence, and worked closely with expert witnesses, engineers, and consultants to develop and present technical evidence.
Scott's experience representing the development and building sides of construction disputes provides a valuable, contrast-driven perspective that supports the strategic evaluation of claims and practical approaches to resolution for Ball Janik's clients.
A proud veteran, Scott served in the United States Air Force for eight years, including roles as an Airspace Control Officer and in Space Systems Operations, supporting safe space flight operations and satellite communications.
Carrying the discipline of airborne operations, Scott worked in the aerospace sector as a Satellite Engineer and Orbital Analyst. He also held a role in the housing sector, supporting marketing and business development initiatives.
Scott received his law degree from Stetson University College of Law. He attended American Military University, where he earned degrees in marketing, business management, and related support services.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com.
The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison
June 02, 2026 —
Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.1. Introduction
As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years.
The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at
EClarkson@sdvlaw.com
Generic Complaint Alleging Bad Faith is Insufficient
August 24, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after determining that the insured’s claims for bad faith and unfair claims settlement practices were insufficiently pled. Navia v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111261 (W.D. N. C. May 20, 2026).
The insured submitted a claim for damages to real property owned by the insured allegedly caused by Hurricane Helene. State Farm advised the insured that only some of the claimed damages were covered by the policy and payment for such damages were denied because the estimate for the covered damages did not exceed the policy’s deductible. The insured sued asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair claim settlement practices.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Meaningful Change to Contractors License Law Disgorgement Rule of Business and Professions Code Section 7031
November 02, 2026 —
Garret Mandel - Porter Law GroupCalifornia Business and Professions Code section 7031 has historically imposed a severe and unforgiving penalty on any licensed contractor or subcontractor (“licensee”) performing any construction work after its contractor’s license becomes suspended or is revoked. The penalty for many years has been a prohibition against the licensee bringing an action to collect payment owed and a draconian penalty allowing the party who paid the licensee to recover, or cause the licensee to “disgorge,” any payment the licensee received for the entire contract. This strict penalty could apply to funds received for the entire contract even when the license was suspended or revoked for only a short period of time during the project. This meant, for example, that a licensee who was paid $10 million under a contract for a project that took a year to build could have to disgorge the entire $10 million it received under that contract as a result of performing work while its license was suspended for only a week of the entire project duration. Draconian indeed. A limited statutory substantial-compliance exemption could provide relief, but it requires a court determination that the statutory conditions have been met.
Beginning on January 1, 2027, the licensee will be thrown a lifeline on this issue. Under California Senate Bill 342, becoming effective on January 1, 2027, California contractors on qualifying projects will no longer face the same severe penalties – but there are limitations.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Mandel, Porter Law GroupMr. Mandel may be contacted at
gmandel@porterlaw.com
You Filed a Mechanic’s Lien. Then You Discovered a Mistake. Now What?
November 09, 2026 —
Adam Hall - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogRecording a mechanic’s lien is an important tool for Colorado contractors seeking payment for labor, materials, and services furnished on construction projects. But what happens when a contractor records a lien and subsequently discovers that the amount claimed is incorrect? Can the contractor amend the lien to reduce the amount owed, even after the statutory deadline for recording or amending the lien has passed? Or does the original mistake render the lien unenforceable?
The Colorado Court of Appeals addressed these questions in Galiant Homes, LLC v. Herlik, 2025 COA 3, providing important guidance for contractors recording mechanic’s and materialman’s liens in connection with construction projects.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam Hall, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Hall may be contacted at
ahall@hhmrlaw.com
