U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment
June 15, 2026 —
Jennifer Kretschmann & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case,
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities.
The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
New Executive Order Prohibits Federal Contractors from Engaging in DEI Through Employment and Procurement Activities
April 27, 2026 —
Laura De Santos & Monica Prieto - Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniOn March 26, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14398, entitled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, requiring federal agencies to add contractual language in all federal contracts prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from engaging in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, as defined by the Executive Order (EO).
While this EO includes language similar to prior DEI-related orders, it introduces a significant expansion in enforcement by subjecting non-compliant contractors to liability under the False Claims Act (FCA), including exposure to whistleblower actions and qui tam litigation. A qui tam claim is a civil action by a private individual on behalf of the government alleging fraud against federal programs and seeking to recover damages.
The new EO states that involvement in any racially discriminatory DEI activities is not only unethical and illegal, but also deemed fraudulent against federal programs because it is material to the government’s payment decisions. The definition of DEI activities here matters, as this EO expands a contractor’s obligations beyond the management of its employment policies and includes prohibitions against funding or expending time or resources on DEI activities and contracting with subcontractors, vendors, or suppliers utilizing DEI programs.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura De Santos, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. De Santos may be contacted at
ldesantos@grsm.com
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Function Over Form: Eighth Circuit Narrows Application of Cosmetic Damage Exclusion
October 12, 2026 —
Ali Jamwal - SDV FenchurchIntroduction
In a significant decision for policyholders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of an exclusion for cosmetic roof damage caused by wind or hail.
[1] The court held that for a cosmetic damage exclusion to apply, an insurer must prove that the roof’s ability to function as a barrier to the elements is not impaired as compared to its functionality prior to the loss or damage.
Background
In April 2022, a hailstorm struck the insured school buildings causing indentations in the buildings’ metal roofs. The hail did not puncture the roofs’ metal, and no leaks were reported. The insurer denied the claim based on the policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion, which precluded coverage for “cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind and/or hail.” Cosmetic damage was defined as “superficial damage that altered the appearance of the roof surfacing, but such damage does not prevent the roof from continuing to function as a barrier to entrance of the elements to the same extent as it did before.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ali Jamwal, SDV FenchurchMr. Jamwal may be contacted at
ali.jamwal@sdvfenchurch.us
Federal Bid Protest Standard of Review and Disparate Treatment with Ratings
August 16, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent decision out of the Federal Claims Court explains the post-award bid protest standard of review.
In Massman Construction Co. v. U.S., 2026 WL 1971985 (Fed.Cl. 2026), a protestor brought a post-award bid protest after the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to another contractor. The protestor argued that the Army Corps (government) acted irrational in its evaluation through disparate treatment. The Court of Federal Claims agreed and remanded for the Army Corps to “either justify this disparity or explain why [awardee’s] lower-priced, but technically inferior proposal provides the best value to the government.” Massman Construction, supra at *1.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case
September 15, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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
WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence
May 12, 2026 —
Wood Smith Henning BermanChad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law.
Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wood Smith Henning Berman
