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.
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.
Landlord Determined to Not Qualify as Additional Insured
September 08, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn a dispute between two insurers, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the landlord was not an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. Peleus Ins. Co. v. Am. European Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 June 22, 2026).
Blossom Miller sued 57th Avenue and 21st Century in state court alleging that she was injured when she tripped on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises (the “Miller Action”). The premises was leased by 57th Avenue to 21st Century.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke Win Final Summary Judgment on Behalf of Homeowner’s Insurance Company
November 02, 2026 —
Ryan S. Parker, Robert Biferie & Matthew Groteke - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke won final summary judgment on behalf of their client, a homeowner’s insurance company. The case related to a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Milton, which was reported more than ten months after the date of loss. The homeowner’s insurance company reviewed historical aerial photography of the roof and determined that there was no evidence of damage immediately after the Hurricane, which was inconsistent with the condition of the roof when it was inspected more than ten months later. Additionally, the homeowner’s insurance company was unable to determine when the interior water damage occurred due to the delay in reporting the claim. After a lawsuit was filed, the Traub Lieberman team took depositions of the Plaintiffs and the opposing expert and eventually filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the failure to timely report the claim and resulting prejudice to their client. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that notice of the claim was untimely as a matter of law and that the Plaintiffs failed to rebut the legal presumption of prejudice to the insurance company. As a result of the ruling, the insurance company has a valid claim for attorney’s fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan S. Parker, Traub Lieberman,
Robert Biferie, Traub Lieberman and
Matthew Groteke, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Parker may be contacted at rparker@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Biferie may be contacted at rbiferie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Groteke may be contacted at mgroteke@tlsslaw.com
Read the full story...
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle
July 13, 2026 —
Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026.
Key Takeaways
Act 932:
- Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
- Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
- Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
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
Don’t Forget to Include Termination Language in Your Contract
November 02, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case explains why termination language or a basis to withhold contract sums is important in your contract. Don’t neglect this language or the negotiation that goes into having this language.
In a recent dispute, GSD Contracting, LLC v. All American Builders & Debris Removal, Inc., 2026 WL 3068422 (Fla. 4th CA 2026), a subcontract included language that said that 10% retainage would be paid 90 days after final completion of the project. The subcontract did NOT include termination for cause language; it only included termination for convenience language. Towards the end of the project, mold was discovered warranting mold remediation. The subcontractor refused to perform until the mold was remediated. The general contractor claimed it was remediated but the subcontractor argued the remediation was insufficient because the contractor did not engage an industrial hygienist. After the subcontractor refused to complete its work, the general contractor terminated the subcontractor for cause. The subcontractor then sued the general contractor for its 10% retainage claiming the general contractor breached the subcontract. The trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, agreed. The appellate court found that the contract required the general contractor to pay the subcontractor’s retainage 90 days after final completion and the project had long been completed. “Significantly, the subcontract does not contain a termination for cause provision or any pertinent provision permitting [the general contractor] to withhold or retain [the subcontractor’s] retainage following a termination…Nothing in the subcontract provides that [the general contractor] may thereafter withhold the retainage based on an alleged default by [the subcontractor].” GSD Contracting, supra, at *2.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
