Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss
April 20, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026).
Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds.
Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
50 State Matrices | 2026 Edition
March 03, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGRSM’s 50 State Legal Matrices provide a comprehensive, state-by-state snapshot of statutory law across all 50 U.S. states. Spanning critical areas such as indemnification, contractor licensing, labor standards, statute of limitations, and more, this resource enables businesses and counsel to quickly identify key legal requirements and variations across jurisdictions.
Designed as a practical starting point rather than definitive legal advice, the Matrices help multi-state operators and attorneys navigate the complex patchwork of laws that can vary dramatically from one state to another.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders
August 24, 2026 —
Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & WilmerAfter filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1
Background
McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer,
Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and
Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com
Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com
Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Potential Gap in Workers Compensation Immunity Statutory Framework
June 02, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWorkers compensation insurance is important. As an owner, you want to ensure the contractors you hire have workers compensation insurance. Assuming you hire a contractor that is statutorily exempt from workers compensation, you want to make sure, no exception, that any subcontractor that is hired has workers compensation insurance. (Regardless, you always want subcontractors to have workers compensation insurance.). In construction, the prime contractor serves as the “
statutory employer” for purposes of workers compensation insurance.
With workers compensation comes
workers compensation immunity.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit
May 12, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Partner Mike D’Andrea and Associates Ruth Rasiah and Kaylah Abdullah in the Los Angeles office for obtaining a complete dismissal of their clients in a significant claim involving California’s Public Utilities regulations.
After lengthy litigation, BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Claimant, Spectrum (Charter Communications), which resulted in a complete dismissal of the action against BWB&O’s clients. At issue was whether California’s Public Utilities Code shifted the common law duty to maintain certain utility equipment in residential areas within Southern California. After significant briefing, the Superior Court found that BWB&O correctly argued that the Public Utilities Code required utility companies, like Spectrum, to fully maintain utility equipment, and that private residents are not responsible for utility maintenance (even if the physical equipment is located on private property).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
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.
FERC Issues Show-Cause Orders: Impacts on California and Other Regional Power Markets
July 13, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAt an open meeting on June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six FERC-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs—PJM Interconnection, ISO New England, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Southwest Power Pool, New York Independent System Operator and California Independent System Operator—along with their transmission owners (TOs), directing each region and the TOs to justify or revise tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive transmission service from the grid. These show-cause orders will impact several power markets across the country, including California.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
