Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute
May 05, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured.
The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured:
This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Microscopic Soot, Major Win: Policyholder Coverage Expands
January 06, 2026 —
Scott P. DeVries & Natalie Reed - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a recent opinion, the 8th Circuit rejected an insurer’s attempt to expand insurer victories in a COVID-19 context to other more traditional claims of property damage. Reaffirming long standing principles, the court held soot and water damage associated with a fire constituted “direct physical loss or damage” under a commercial property insurance policy.
The policyholder, Maxus Metropolitan, sued their insurer, Travelers, which had refused to reimburse Maxus for remediation costs associated with a fire at their building. The dispute arose after one of six buildings in a complex owned by Maxus caught fire. Travelers covered part of the damage for the building that caught fire. However, seven months after the fire, Maxus learned of soot and water damage throughout the other five buildings, some of which were under construction and some that had residents. The commercial property policy Travelers issued to Maxus covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss…or damage.” Travelers refused to reimburse for the remediation and in response Maxus sued Travelers for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay in Missouri.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Natalie Reed, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@hunton.com
Ms. Reed may be contacted at nreed@hunton.com
Read the full story...
ZEC 2.0: New York’s Zero Emissions Credit Program Gets an Extension and a Reboot
February 10, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a landmark move that could shape New York’s energy landscape for decades, state officials have taken steps to both preserve its existing nuclear power facilities and significantly expand its advanced nuclear capacity. These actions are part of a broader strategy to maintain grid reliability and meet both escalating energy demand and the state’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and zero carbon goals.
Renewing the Zero Emissions Credit Program
On January 22, 2026, the New York Public Services Commission (PSC) unanimously voted to extend and reboot the Zero Emissions Credit program (now called ZEC 2.0) to ensure that New York’s four upstate nuclear reactors maintain operations through 2049. The program, which began in 2016, is designed to provide revenue subsidies for legacy nuclear facilities that have been facing financial difficulties in New York’s competitive wholesale power markets. State officials have stated that the benefits of ensuring the continued operations of these reactors far outweigh the costs due to the lack of zero-emissions alternatives and the importance of ensuring grid reliability in the face of escalating energy demand from large loads like data centers.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
UPDATED: Dominion Sues Feds Over Offshore Wind Project Halt, With Action Possible on Others Shut
February 02, 2026 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordUPDATED: Dominion Energy
filed a federal lawsuit Dec. 23 in Norfolk, Va. against the U.S. Interior Dept.
immediate construction pause order for its 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind energy project (CVOW) off Virginia Beach, Va., which it developing to begin operation next year. The project is one of five large East Coast offshore wind projects under construction that the federal agency paused, claiming new "national security" risks. Dominion and OSW Project LLC, the entity that includes project co-owner Stonepeak Partners, a private investor, said they seek a
temporary restraining order.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-RecordMs. Rubin may be contacted at
rubind@enr.com
Snell & Wilmer Phoenix Partner Jody Pokorski Named Winner of Connect CRE’s 2025 Lawyers in Real Estate Awards
January 21, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerPhoenix – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Phoenix Partner
Jody K. Pokorski has been named a winner of
Connect CRE’s
Lawyers in Real Estate Awards for the Phoenix and Southwest region. This recognition highlights commercial real estate lawyers throughout various regions of the U.S., who have significantly impacted commercial real estate through their contributions to the industry and community.
Pokorski’s practice is concentrated in real estate transactions, finance and regulatory matters, including work relating to commercial purchase and sale transactions, real estate financing, master planned communities, subdivision matters, and leasing. She advises large and small corporate clients in real estate matters throughout the United States. Pokorski represents developers, owners, lenders, and contractors and has significant experience handling real estate matters for institutes of higher learning and other educational entities.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements
April 14, 2026 —
Abby Dvorkin - Snell & WilmerThe ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project.
Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Abby Dvorkin, Snell & WilmerMs. Dvorkin may be contacted at
advorkin@swlaw.com
Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine
April 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows:
Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
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.
